The Register of Copyrights
United States Copyright Office· Library of Congress • 101 Independence Avenue SE· Washington., DC 20559-6000

TO:

James H.Billington

DATE: June 11,2010

The Librarian of congr~
FROM:

Marybeth Peters~

Register of CopyrIghts
SUBJECT:

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights in RM 2008-8; Rulemaking
on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection
Systems for Access Control Technologies

I am pleased to present my recommendation relating to the rulemaking on exemptions
from the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access tocopyrighted works. This document constitutes my formal recommendation., as required pursuant
to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(I)(C).

Outline of the RecommendationI.

BACKGROUNDA.

Legislative Requirements for Rulemaking ProceedingB.

Responsibilities of Register of Copyrights and Librarian of CongressC.

The Purpose and Focus of the Rulemaking

D.

1.

Purpose ofthe Rulemaking

2.

The Necessary Showing

3.

Determination of "Class o.fWorks"

Consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Communications andInformationII.

SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND HEARINGSIII.

THE DESIGNATED CLASSES
A.

Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that areprotected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention isaccomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short
portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism orcomment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has
reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the
purpose of the use in the following instances:

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

Page 2•

Educational uses by college and university professors and by college
and university film and media studies students;•

Documentary filmmaking;•Noncommercial videos

B.

Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute
software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole
purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they havebeen lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

C.

Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable usedwireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications
network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of thecomputer program solely in order to connect to a wirelesstelecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by theoperator of the network.

D.

Video games accessible on personal computers and protected bytechnological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained
works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of goodfaith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities,
if:

E.

IV.

June 11, 2010•

The information derived from the security testing is usedprimarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of acomputer, computer system, or computer network; and•The information derived from the security testing is used or
maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright
infringement or a violation of applicable law.

Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due tomalfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall beconsidered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement
or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial
marketplace.

OTHER CLASSES CONSIDERED, BUT NOT RECOMMENDED
A.

Subscription based services that offer DRM-protected streaming video where
the provider has only made available players for a limited number ofplatforms, effectively creating an access control that requires a specificRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 3operating system version and/or set of hardware to view purchased material;
andMotion pictures protected by anti-access measures, such that access to the
motion picture content requires use of a certain platform.
B.

Lawfully purchased sound recordings, audiovisual works, and software
programs distributed commercially in digital format by online music andmedia stores and protected by technological measures that depend on thecontinued availability of authenticating servers, when such authenticating
servers cease functioning because the store fails or for other reasons; andLawfully purchased sound recordings, audiovisual works, and software
programs distributed commercially in digital format by online music andmedia stores and protected by technological measures that depend on thecontinued availability of authenticating servers, prior to the failure of theservers for technologists and researchers studying and documenting how theauthenticating servers that effectuate the technological measures function.

C.

Software and information recorded, produced, stored, manipulated ordelivered by the software, that a forensic investigator seeks to copy, activate,or reverse engineer in order to obtain evidence in a court proceeding.

D.

Audiovisual works delivered by digital television ("DTV") transmission
intended for free, over-the-air reception by anyone, which are marked with a"broadcast flag" indicator that prevents, restricts, or inhibits the ability ofrecipients to access the work at a time of the recipient's choosing andsubsequent to the time of transmission, or using a machine owned by therecipient but which is not the same machine that originally acquired thetransmission.

E.

Audiovisual works embedded in a physical medium (such as Blu-Ray discs)
which are marked for "down-conversion" or "down-resolutioning" (such as
by the presence of an Image Constraint Token "ICT") when the work is tobe conveyed through any of a playback machine's existing audio or visual
output connectors, and therefore restricts the literal quantity of theembedded work available to the user (measured by visual resolution,
temporal resolution, and color fidelity).

F.

Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editionsof the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized
entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s
read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a
specialized format.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

I.

June 11, 2010

Page 4BACKGROUNDA.

Legislative Requirements for Rulemaking Proceeding

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), Pub. L. No. 105-304 (1998), wasenacted to implement certain provisions of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (“WCT”) and WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty (“WPPT”). It established “a wide range of rules that will
govern not only copyright owners in the marketplace for electronic commerce, but also
consumers, manufacturers, distributors, libraries, educators, and on-line service providers”; it“define[d] whether consumers and businesses may engage in certain conduct, or use certain
devices, in the course of transacting electronic commerce.”1
Title I of the Act, which added a new Chapter 12 to title 17 of the United States Code,prohibits circumvention of certain technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyrightowners to protect their works ( i.e. “access controls”). Specifically, Section 1201(a)(1)(A)2
provides, in part, that “[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title.” In order to ensure that the public will havecontinued ability to engage in noninfringing uses of copyrighted works, such as fair use,3
subparagraph (B) limits this prohibition. It provides that the prohibition against circumvention“shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class ofworks, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding three-year period, adversely
affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particularclass of works under this title” as determined in a rulemaking proceeding. The rulemaking
proceeding is conducted by the Register of Copyrights, who is to provide notice of therulemaking, seek comments from the public, consult with the Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, and recommend final
regulations to the Librarian of Congress.4 The regulations, to be issued by the Librarian ofCongress, announce “any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined,
1

Report of the House Committee on Commerce on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, H.R.
Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 2, at 22 (1998) (“Commerce Comm. Report”).
2

Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references hereinafter are to sections of title 17, United States

3

See Commerce Comm. Report at 25-26, 35.

Code.

4

Report of the Committee of Conference on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, H.R. Conf. Rep. No.
105-796, at 64 (1998) (“Conf. Report”). In addition, a number of statutory exceptions are codified at Section
1201(d)-(j).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 5

pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by
persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and theprohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such classof works for the ensuing 3-year period.”5This is the fourth Section 1201 rulemaking. The first rulemaking culminated in the
Librarian’s issuance of a regulation on October 27, 2000, announcing that noninfringing users of
two classes of works would not be subject to the prohibition against circumvention of access
controls.6 The second rulemaking resulted in the Librarian’s decision on October 28, 2003, thatthe prohibition against circumvention would not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing
uses of four classes of copyrighted works.7 In the third rulemaking, the Librarian announced on
November 27, 2006, that noninfringing users of the following six classes of works would not be
subject to the prohibition on circumvention:
1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college oruniversity’s film or media studies department, when circumvention isaccomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works
for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.
2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become
obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access,when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival
reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall beconsidered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible awork stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably
available in the commercial marketplace.
3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction
or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is nolonger manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available
in the commercial marketplace.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of

5

See Section 1201(a)(1)(D).

6

Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control
Technologies, Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. 64,555 (Oct. 27, 2000) (“2000
Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights”).
7

Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control
Technologies, 68 Fed. Reg. 62,011 (Oct. 31, 2003).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 6

the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities)
contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloudfunction or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephonehandsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, whencircumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to awireless telephone communication network.
6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those soundrecordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technologicalprotection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or
exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal
computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of goodfaith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.8
B.

Responsibilities of Register of Copyrights and Librarian of Congress

As noted above, the prohibition against circumvention is subject to triennial review by theRegister of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress in order to permit a determination whether
users of particular classes of copyrighted works are, or in the next three years are likely to be,
adversely affected by the prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of copyrighted
works. The primary responsibility of the Register and the Librarian in this rulemaking proceeding is
to assess whether the implementation of access control measures is diminishing the ability of
individuals to use copyrighted works in ways that are not infringing.9 As examples of technologicalprotection measures in effect today, the House Commerce Committee offered the use of “password
codes” to control authorized access to computer programs and encryption or scrambling of cable

8
See Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control
Technologies, 71 Fed. Reg. 68,472 (Nov. 27, 2006).
9

Commerce Comm. Report at 37. The Commerce Committee Report referred to “whether the prevalenceof these technological protections, with respect to particular categories of copyrighted materials, is diminishing theability of individuals to use those works in ways that are otherwise lawful.” However, in the draft of the DMCA
under consideration at the time, the provision that eventually would become Section 1201 was worded somewhat
differently, placing the responsibility for the rulemaking with the Secretary of Commerce, who was to determine“whether users of copyrighted works have been, or are likely to be in the succeeding 2-year period, adversely
affected by the implementation of technological protection measures that effectively control access to works
protected under title 17, United States Code, in their ability to make lawful uses under title 17, United States Code,of copyrighted works.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the subsequent amendment changing “lawful” to “noninfringing”
clarifies that the focus of the rulemaking is on whether access controls have adversely affected the ability of users tomake noninfringing uses, a somewhat narrower focus than might have been the case if the original proposed
statutory text – “lawful uses” – had been retained. Note, however, that even the original proposed text referred to“lawful uses under title 17.”

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 7

programming, videocassettes, and CD-ROMs.10 Congress intended that the Register solicit inputthat would enable consideration of a broad range of current or likely future adverse impacts. The
statute directs that in conducting the rulemaking, the Register and the Librarian shall examine:(i) The availability for use of copyrighted works;(ii) The availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational
purposes;(iii) The impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied
to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or
research;(iv) The effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of
copyrighted works; and(v) Such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.
These factors to be considered in the rulemaking process require the Register to carefully balance
the availability of works for use, the effect of the prohibition on particular uses, and the effect of
circumvention on copyrighted works.11
C.

The Purpose and Focus of the Rulemaking
1.

Purpose of the Rulemaking

As originally drafted, Section 1201(a)(1) consisted of only one sentence--what is now the
first sentence of Section 1201(a)(1): “No person shall circumvent a technological protection
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.”12 Section
1201(a)(2), like the provision finally enacted, would prohibit the manufacture, importation,offering to the public, providing or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service,device, or component to circumvent access control measures. Section 1201(a) thus addressed“access control” measures, prohibiting both the conduct of circumventing access control measuresand making or trafficking in products, services and devices that circumvent access control
measures. In addition to these measures relating to circumvention of access control measures,
Section 1201 also addressed circumvention of a different type of technological measure. As
originally drafted and as finally enacted, Section 1201(b) prohibits the manufacture, importation,

10

Id.

11

Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(i)-(v).

12See Report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998,
S. Rep. No. 195-190 (1998) (“Senate Report”).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 8offering to the public, providing or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service,device, or component to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that
effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under title 17 in a copyrighted work. The type oftechnological measure addressed in Section 1201(b) includes copy-control measures and othermeasures that control uses of works that would infringe the exclusive rights of the copyrightowner. They will frequently be referred to herein as copy controls. But unlike Section 1201(a),which prohibits both the conduct of circumvention and devices that circumvent, Section 1201(b)does not prohibit the conduct of circumventing copy control measures. The prohibition in Section
1201(b) extends only to devices that circumvent copy control measures. The decision not toprohibit the conduct of circumventing copy controls was made, in part, because it would penalize
some noninfringing conduct such as fair use.
In the House of Representatives, the DMCA was sequentially referred to the Committee
on Commerce after it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee. The Commerce Committee
was concerned that Section 1201, in its original form, might undermine Congress's commitment
to fair use.13 The Committee acknowledged that the growth and development of the Internet has
had a significant positive impact on the access of students, researchers, consumers, and the public
to information. It also recognized that a plethora of information, most of it embodied in materials
subject to copyright protection, was available to individuals, often for free, that in the past could
only have been located and acquired only through the expenditure of considerable time,
resources, and money.14 The Committee expressed concern that marketplace realities may
someday dictate a different outcome, resulting in less access, rather than more, to copyrighted
materials that are important to education, scholarship, and other socially vital endeavors.15 It
noted that possible measures that might lead to such an outcome included the elimination of print
or other hard-copy versions, permanent encryption of all electronic copies and adoption ofbusiness models that restrict distribution and availability of works. The Committee concluded
that “[i]n this scenario, it could be appropriate to modify the flat prohibition against thecircumvention of effective technological measures that control access to copyrighted materials, inorder to ensure that access for lawful purposes is not unjustifiably diminished.”16 In order toaddress such possible developments, the Commerce Committee proposed a modification of

13

Commerce Comm. Report at 35.

14

Id.

15

Id. at 36.

16

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 9Section 1201 which it characterized as a “fail-safe mechanism.”17 In the words of the Committee
Report, this mechanism would monitor developments in the marketplace for copyrighted
materials, and allow the enforceability of the prohibition against the act of circumvention to be
selectively waived, for limited time periods, if necessary to prevent a diminution in theavailability to individual users of a particular category of copyrighted materials.18 The “fail-safe”
mechanism is this rulemaking. In its final form as enacted by Congress, slightly modified fromthe mechanism that appeared in the version of the DMCA reported out of the CommerceCommittee, the Register is to conduct a rulemaking proceeding and, after consulting with theAssistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce,
recommend to the Librarian whether he should conclude that persons who are users of a
copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by
the prohibition under Section 1201(a)(1) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under title 17
of a particular class of copyrighted works.19 “The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted
works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted undersubparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or
are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not
apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.”20 The
Commerce Committee offered additional guidance as to the task of the Register and the Librarianin this rulemaking: “The goal of the proceeding is to assess whether the implementation oftechnological protection measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works isadversely affecting the ability of individual users to make lawful uses of copyrighted works . . . .
The primary goal of the rulemaking proceeding is to assess whether the prevalence of thesetechnological protections, with respect to particular categories of copyrighted materials, isdiminishing the ability of individuals to use these works in ways that are otherwise lawful.”21
Thus, the task of this rulemaking is to determine whether the availability and use of access control
measures has already diminished or is about to diminish the ability of the public to engage innoninfringing uses of copyrighted works similar or analogous to those that the public had

17

Id.

18

Id.

19

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C)..

20

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(D).

21

Commerce Comm. Report at 37. Accord Section-By-Section Analysis of H.R. 2281 as passed by theUnited States House of Representatives on August 4, 1998. House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., (Comm.
Print 1998) at 6 (“House Manager’s Report”). See, supra, regarding the change from “lawful” to “noninfringing” inthe text of what became Section 1201.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 10traditionally been able to make prior to the enactment of the DMCA. As the CommerceCommittee Report stated, in examining the factors set forth in Section 1201(a)(1)(C), the focus
must be on “whether the implementation of technological protection measures (such as encryption
or scrambling) has caused adverse impact on the ability of users to make lawful uses.”22
2.

The Necessary Showing

In the first Section 1201 rulemaking, the Register concluded, based on a review of thestatutory text and the legislative history, that a determination to designate a class of works in thisrulemaking must be based on a showing that the prohibition has or is likely to have a substantial
adverse effect on noninfringing uses of a particular class of works.23 The required showing of a“substantial” adverse effect is drawn from the legislative history, where the requirement isvariously stated as substantial adverse impact, distinct, verifiable, and measurable impacts, and“more than de minimis impacts.”24 Similarly, for proof of “likely” adverse effects on
noninfringing uses, the Register found that a proponent must prove by a preponderance of theevidence that the harm alleged is more likely than not; a proponent may not rely on speculation
alone to sustain a prima facie case of likely adverse effects on noninfringing uses.25 If theevidence is based on likely adverse effects on noninfringing uses, and the proponent demonstrates
that such an effect is more likely than not in the ensuing three-year period, the proponent must
demonstrate that the adverse impact is substantial (i.e., more than de minimis), and distinct (i.e.,
more than a vague or generalized claim unrelated to a particular class). The Register alsoemphasized the requirement of showing a causal nexus between the prohibition on circumvention
and the alleged harm. Adverse impacts that are the result of factors other than the prohibition are
not within the scope of this rulemaking.26
The demonstration of a present or likely adverse effect is only part of the requisite
threshold showing. Proponents of designating a particular class of works must also provide
sufficient facts and legal analysis to demonstrate that the underlying use affected by theprohibition is a noninfringing use. In the current proceeding, some proponents of certain classes

22

Commerce Comm. Report at 37.

23

2000 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,558.

24

See Notice of Inquiry, 70 Fed. Reg. 57,526, 57,528 (Oct. 3, 2005).

25

See id.

26

2000 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,559.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 11of works asserted that where it is unclear whether a particular use is a fair use, the Register andLibrarian should give the benefit of the doubt to the proponent of designating the class.27 They
argued that this process would provide courts with the opportunity to assess the underlying use
and render a determination whether the uses are infringing or noninfringing. If the court foundthat the use was noninfringing, there would be no liability for circumvention under Section
1201(a)(1). On the other hand, if the court found that the underlying use was infringing, then thedesignation of the class would not shield them from liability under Section 1201(a)(1).
Proponents of this approach argued that it would allow for a development of copyright law,particularly as it relates to fair use, and that failing to take such an approach would effectively
foreclose the courts from “breaking new ground” on fair use because “if a proposed exemption
involved an activity supported by a fair use argument that has yet to be addressed by the courts,
and the exemption were denied, a court may never have the opportunity to rule on the question
because a defendant may be unable to raise the fair use defense against a Section 1201(a)(1)claim.”28
More specifically, that proponent suggested that “[i]f the Librarian is satisfied that theactivity in question might plausibly be a fair use or be protected by any other statutory exception,
but has some doubt on the question, then the Librarian should narrow the proposed exemption to
apply only so long as the activity in question is noninfringing.”29
The Register declines to incorporate such a rule of doubt in this proceeding. Whilesomeone who must circumvent an access control in order to engage in what she believes to be afair use might be deterred from doing so due to the knowledge that she would have no defense toa claim that she had violated Section 1201(a)(1), that does not lead to the conclusion that a classshould be designated whenever a proponent has offered a plausible but ultimately unpersuasive
argument that a particular use is fair or otherwise noninfringing. The statute requires that theRegister recommend, and the Librarian designate, a class based on a finding that users of works inthat class “are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue ofsuch prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works.”30

27

C11A (EFF) at 2-4.

28

Id. at 3.

29

Id. at 3-4.

30

See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(B).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 12That language requires a conclusion that the use is or is likely to be noninfringing, not merely thatthe use could plausibly be considered noninfringing.31 And the burden of proving that a particularuse is noninfringing belongs to the proponent of a class of works.32
That does not mean that unless there is a controlling precedent directly on point, theRegister and the Librarian must conclude that a particular use is an infringing use. If, forexample, based on a review and application of the statutory factors set forth in Section 107 and areview and analysis of judicial precedents, the Register and Librarian conclude that a particularuse, although never before adjudicated in the courts, is a fair use, the Librarian may designate aclass of works based upon the conclusion that the use in question is fair if all the otherrequirements for designating the class have been satisfied. But it is not sufficient to conclude thata use could conceivably be fair. The burden of persuasion is on the proponent of the class.
With respect to the claim that a failure in such a case to designate a class might forever
deprive the courts of the ability to consider whether a particular use is noninfringing, the Registerconsiders that scenario unlikely. If, for example, the Register had recommended against
designating the proposed class of “audiovisual works released on DVD, where circumvention isundertaken solely for the purpose of extracting clips for inclusion in noncommercial videos that
do not infringe copyright,”33 the courts would not have been effectively prevented fromdetermining whether the extraction of film clips for inclusion in noncommercial videos constitutefair use. It is not, as a general rule, necessary to circumvent access controls on DVDs in order tomake copies of film clips for inclusion in noncommercial videos, although it has been asserted
and the Register has acknowledged that in some cases it is preferable, and perhaps evennecessary, to circumvent in order effectively to make one’s point.34 A person wishing to
adjudicate whether inclusion of film clips in noncommercial videos can be a fair use may do so byusing one of the other means discussed below without circumventing any access controls.
31

The meaning of “likely” was addressed in the first Section 1201 rulemaking. “‘Likely’—the term usedin section 1201 to describe the showing of future harm that must be made— means ‘probable,’ ‘in all probability,’ or‘having a better chance of existing or occurring than not.’ Black’s Law Dictionary 638 (Abridged 6th ed. 1991).” See
65 Fed. Reg. at 64,562.
32
See Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights in RM 2002-4E, Rulemaking on Exemptions from
Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control, Oct. 31, 2003, at 25 (hereinafter“2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights”).
33

The Register is not recommending designation of that precise class, but is recommending designation ofa similar class. See discussion infra at p. 22
34

See discussion infra at p. 59, regarding the DVDs and alternatives to circumvention.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 13

The Register also declines to create a per se rule in an evidentiary vacuum. Proposals todesignate classes of works in this proceeding are evaluated on the totality of the evidence,
including market alternatives to circumvention that enable noninfringing uses. Thus, a proponent
must demonstrate, in addition to noninfringing nature of the underlying use, that the prohibition isadversely affecting the use of works in a particular class of works. In some cases, this may bedemonstrated by showing that the work is only available in copies protected by access controls.
In other cases, a proponent may prove that the protected copy is needed to achieve the intended
use. In all cases, the proponent must be able to demonstrate that circumvention of access controls
is necessary in order to engage in the desired noninfringing use.
Another threshold consideration is whether the prohibition is causally related to theadverse effect on noninfringing uses. In order for the prohibition to apply to a work, thetechnological protection measure must control access to a copyrighted work. A factual record that
establishes how a technological protection measure controls access to a work is essential to theanalysis.35
If these threshold showings are met, the Register will continue the analysis in relation to
the statutory factors that the Librarian must consider before designating a class of works. The
Register will, when appropriate, assess the alternatives that exist to accomplish the noninfringing
use; such evidence is relevant to the inquiry regarding whether the prohibition is adversely
affecting the noninfringing use of the class of works. This assessment also includes considerationof any other statutory exemptions to the prohibition that may be applicable to the use. If astatutory exemption applies, there may be no need for the Librarian to designate a class. On theother hand, if Congress has enacted a statutory exemption for certain types of activity that
includes requirements that proponents of a class cannot meet, that may be evidence of legislative
intent not to permit circumvention when those requirements have not been met.
At this stage of the analysis, a balancing of the interests of users and copyright owners is
critical. If an exemption is warranted by the evidentiary record, the proper tailoring of the scopeof the class is also an important consideration.
However, if a proponent of a class does not make a threshold showing in the record,

35

The proponent of a class of works does not necessarily have to provide a technical analysis of how theaccess control operates, but she must provide sufficient information to enable the decisionmaker to understand how,
as a practical matter (e.g., from the point of view of the user of the copy of the work), access is controlled.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 14mainly that the use is noninfringing or that the prohibition is causing the effect on noninfringing
uses, the evaluation of the statutory factors will not be warranted. Only when a proponent
demonstrates a prima facie case for designating a class will the Register engage in the furtherbalancing of the respective interests called for in the statutory factors.
In each rulemaking proceeding, proposed classes are reviewed de novo. The fact that aclass was previously designated by the Librarian creates no presumption that redesignation isappropriate, but rather the proponent of such a class must make a prima facie case in each threeyear period.36 However, when a class has been designated for the preceding three-year period,
evidence relating to the costs or benefits ensuing from that designation are generally relevant tothe assessment of whether the existing class (or some variation thereof) should be redesignated.
3.

Determination of “Class of Works”

A major focus of the first rulemaking proceeding was how a “class” of works is to be
defined. The Register determined that the statutory language requires that the Librarian identify a“class of works” based upon attributes of the works themselves, and not by reference to someexternal criteria such as the intended use or users of the works. The Register also found that thelegislative history appears to leave no other alternative than to interpret the statute as requiring a“class” to be defined primarily, if not exclusively, by reference to attributes of the works
themselves. The Commerce Committee Report addressed the issue of determining a class ofworks:The issue of defining the scope or boundaries of a “particular class”
of copyrighted works as to which the implementation oftechnological protection measures has been shown to have had an
adverse impact is an important one to be determined during therulemaking proceedings. In assessing whether users of copyrighted
works have been, or are likely to be adversely affected, theSecretary shall assess users' ability to make lawful uses of works“within each particular class of copyrighted works specified in therulemaking.” The Committee intends that the “particular class of
copyrighted works” be a narrow and focused subset of the broad
categories of works of authorship than [sic] is identified in section

36

2000 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,563.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 15102 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 102).37
Because the term “category” of works has a well-understood meaning in the copyrightlaw, referring to the categories set forth in Section 102, the Register concluded that the starting
point for any definition of a “particular class” of works in this rulemaking must be one of thesection 102 categories. The illustrative list of categories appearing in Section 102 of Title 17 is
only a starting point for this decision and a “class” will generally constitute some subset of a
Section 102 category. Crafting the appropriate scope of a “class” is one of the major functions of
the rulemaking proceeding. The scope of any class will necessarily be determined by the evidenceof the present or likely adverse effects on noninfringing uses. The determination of theappropriate scope of a “class of works” recommended for exemption will also take into accountthe adverse effects that designation of the class may have on the market for, or value of,copyrighted works. While starting with a Section 102 category of works, or a subcategory
thereof, the description of a “particular class” of works ordinarily should be further refined byreference to other factors that assist in ensuring that the scope of the class addresses the scope ofthe harm to noninfringing uses. For example, the class might be defined in part by reference tothe medium on which the works are distributed, or even to the access control measures applied tothem. But tailoring a class solely by reference to the medium on which the work appears, or theaccess control measures applied to the work, would be beyond the scope of what a “particularclass of work” is intended to be.38
In previous rulemakings, the Register also rejected proposals to classify works byreference to the type of user or use (e.g., libraries, or scholarly research).39 This conclusion wasconsistent with the records in those rulemakings. However, in the 2006 proceeding the Registerconcluded, based upon the record before her, that in appropriate circumstances a “class of works”
that is defined initially by reference to a Section 102 category of works or a subcategory thereof,
may additionally be refined not only by reference to the medium on which the works are
distributed or the access control measures applied to them, but also by reference to the particular
type of use and/or user to which the exemption shall be applicable. Tailoring a class solely byreference to the use and/or user would be beyond the scope of what “particular class of work” is37Commerce Comm. Report at 38.

38

See 2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 11-13.

39

See id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 16intended to be.40 As the Register stated in 2000, a class of works must always begin with acategory (or categories) of works, or some subset thereof, and may then be refined by otherfactors, such as the medium, the technological protection measure, the use, and/or the user. These
examples of the ways in which a class can be refined are illustrative and are representative of thetypes of refinements that the Register has recommended in the past. The only general requirement
applicable to any class is that it begin with some subset of a category or categories of works. In
some factual situations, that subset classification may be the ending point for a class. However,
the records in this and prior rulemaking proceedings have demonstrated that in many cases, such a
subset of a category of works should be further tailored in accordance with the evidence in therecord. Beyond the requirement for a starting point, the Register finds no basis in the statute or
the legislative history to delineate the contours of a “class of works” in a factual vacuum.41 The
contours of a “class” will depend on the unique factual circumstances established in the40

See 2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 84 (“Another group of proposals defined
the class of works primarily by reference to the type of use of works or the nature of the users, e.g., fair use works. A‘use-based’ or ‘user-based’ classification was rejected by the Register in the last rulemaking, because the statutory
language and the legislative history did not provide support for classification on this basis. Defining a class in sucha manner would make it applicable to all works and would not provide any distinctions between varying types ofworks or the measures protecting them. If an exemption encompassing all works is to be granted, it is more
appropriately a matter for Congressional action.”) (Footnote omitted.)
41

In a letter to the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights made part of the ex parte file inthis proceeding, and appended to the Post-Hearing Response of the Motion Picture Association of America to
Copyright Office Questions relating to DVDs of August 21, 2009, at pp. 8-13, there was an objection to the
Copyright Office’s Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding. Among other things, five organizations representing
copyright owners alleged that they were precluded from presenting arguments on the proper scope of a class ofworks at the initial written comment phase of the proceeding. In the Register’s view, the purpose of the initialcomment phase is to provide the opportunity to propose classes of works for consideration in the rulemaking. If no
proposals are forthcoming in a particular three-year period, this initial comment period would be an indication thatthe market for access-protected digital works is functioning in a satisfactory manner and that no further informationis required for the Register’s recommendation. Opening the initial comment period to all legal arguments would not
only fragment and dilute the process, but also foster an unproductive hypothetical legal debate in a factual vacuum.
The goal of the rulemaking is to solicit information on adverse effects on noninfringing uses that are caused by theprohibition on circumvention and to recommend classes of works to effectuate an appropriate remedy during theensuing three-year period for any adverse effects demonstrated in the record. The starting point for determining theproper scope of a class is to examine the case made by proponents of a class. Once the proponents have made theircase, opponents are invited to express their views, presenting facts and offering legal arguments to the Register. If
opponents believe the proposed class is too broad in scope, they may (among other things) challenge the breadth ofthe proposed class and offer their arguments as to the proper scope of a class. Deferring such submissions until after
the initial proposals have been made helps ensure that all arguments as to scope are grounded in a factual record and,in any event, is a reasonable procedural measure that provides for an orderly and, it is hoped, focused presentation of
the cases for and against the designation of the proposed classes. As the initial Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding
clearly stated, the Register will entertain all arguments and facts related to the proper tailoring of a class. See Noticeof Inquiry, Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control
Technologies, 73 Fed. Reg. 58,073, 58,076 (Oct. 6, 2008) (Hereinafter “Notice of Inquiry” or “NOI”).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 17

rulemaking record on a case-by-case basis.42 Moreover, those factual circumstances must be
considered in the context of the market for copyrighted works in any given three-year period.43
Aside from designating a starting point for a “class of works,” Congress’s only real guidance as tothe scope of any particular class is that such a class should neither be too broad nor too narrow.44
In determining the proper contours of a class in any particular case, the Register will look to thefactual record to assess the proper scope of a class for the ensuing three-year period.
D.

Consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Communications andInformation

Section 1201(a)(1)(C) requires the Register of Copyrights to consult with the Assistant
Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report andcomment on the Assistant Secretary’s views when she makes her recommendation to the
Librarian of Congress.
The Register of Copyrights’s staff has been in frequent communication with the staffof the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) during therulemaking process. The new Assistant Secretary at the Department of Commerce, who is also
the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, wasappointed by the President after the rulemaking process had begun. Prior to the Assistant
Secretary’s appointment and confirmation, NTIA staff was briefed on the rulemaking processestablished by the Register, informed of developments, in attendance at many of the hearings,
and invited to provide input in the course of this rulemaking proceeding. The Copyright
Office General Counsel and an Assistant General Counsel met with the Assistant Secretaryand his staff to discuss the rulemaking proceeding, the record in this rulemaking, and thepreliminary views of NTIA.
The Assistant Secretary formally communicated his views in a letter to the Register on
42

Commerce Comm. Report at 38; (“The issue of defining the scope or boundaries of a ‘particular class’of copyrighted works as to which the implementation of technological protection measures has been shown to have
had an adverse impact is an important one to be determined during the rulemaking proceedings.”)
43

Id. at 36 ("This mechanism would monitor developments in the marketplace for copyrighted materials,
and allow the enforceability of the prohibition against the act of circumvention to be selectively waived, for limited
time periods, if necessary to prevent a diminution in the availability to individual users of a particular category of
copyrighted materials.”)
44

House Manager’s Report at 7.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 18

November 4, 2009,45 supplemented by another letter on April 16, 2010.46 NTIA’s views wereconsidered by the Register in forming her recommendation. A discussion of NTIA’s
substantive analysis of particular proposals is presented in the relevant sections of thisrecommendation.
The Assistant Secretary also offered some views on the considerations applicable to therulemaking process itself, including the scope of a “class of works” and the evaluation of “likely”
adverse effects.
With respect to the determination of a “class of works,” NTIA supported the decision of
the Register to tailor a class to the attributes of the use or the user in appropriate circumstances.
The Assistant Secretary stated that tailoring a class in such a manner facilitates addressing thedemonstrated harm while at the same time limiting the adverse consequences that may result fromthe designation of the class.47 NTIA believes that this approach strikes the appropriate balance bypermitting the exemption of a class for affected uses or users without unnecessarily exempting abroad class to accommodate a subset of users or uses.

With respect to the “likely” adverse effects, NTIA noted that while mere speculation
cannot support a claim of likely adverse effect, both present and future harms must be considered.
NTIA states that mere speculation is insufficient to demonstrate likely harm, but believes thatlikely adverse effects on noninfringing uses may be satisfied by demonstrating that harm is likely
to occur for particular individuals or for the public as a whole. In any case, NTIA believes that anclass of works must be specifically tailored to meet the need or mitigate against the adverse
impact.48 NTIA also stresses that it is important to consider the alternative means ofaccomplishing a noninfringing use that do not require circumvention. Because rights holders
could be harmed by an exemption, NTIA hopes that market forces will compel private solutions

45

Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling to Marybeth Peters, Nov. 4, 2009 (hereinafter “NTIA Letter”).
The letter is available at the Copyright Office website, http://www.copyright.gov/1201/.
46

This letter was solely on the subject of mobile phone unlocking. The contents of this letter are fully
discussed, infra, in the mobile phone unlocking section. This letter is also available at the Copyright Office website,
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/.
47

NTIA Letter, at 2.

48

Id. at 2-3.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 19that will benefit both rights holders and consumers.49
II. SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND HEARINGS
On October 6, 2008, the Register initiated this rulemaking proceeding pursuant to Section
1201(a)(1)(C) with publication of a Notice of Inquiry.50 The NOI requested written comments fromall interested parties, including representatives of copyright owners, educational institutions,libraries and archives, scholars, researchers, and members of the public. The NOI devoted a great
deal of attention to setting out the legislative parameters and the scope of the rulemaking based on
the determinations made in the first rulemaking. It also summarized the scope of the term “classof works” as it has been refined over the course of the three prior rulemakings.51 As in past
Section 1201 rulemaking proceedings, the NOI stated a preference for submission of comments
via electronic filing, and the Copyright Office activated a web-based form to facilitate comment
submission and subsequent posting of comments to the Copyright Office’s website.52
During the initial comment period that ended on December 2, 2008, the Copyright Officereceived nineteen written comments proposing twenty-five classes of works, all of which wereposted on the Office’s website.53 Parties submitting comments during this period were asked to
specify a class or classes of works adversely affected by the prohibition on circumvention ofaccess controls; to summarize their argument in favor of designating the class of works; and toprovide any facts, evidence, and legal arguments supporting the designation. Because some of
the initial comments contained similar or overlapping proposals, the Copyright Office arranged
related classes into groups, and set forth and summarized all proposed classes in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking published on December 29, 2008.54 This NPRM did not present the initialclasses in the form of a proposed rule, but merely as “a starting point for further consideration.”55
49

Id. at 3.

50

See Notice of Inquiry, 73 Fed. Reg. 58,073.

51

Id. at 58,076-77.

52

Id. at 58,078.

53

See Section 1201 Comments at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/index.html. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

54

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection
Systems for Access Control Technologies, 73 Fed. Reg. 79,425 (Dec. 29, 2008) (Hereinafter “NPRM”).
55

Id. at 79,427.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 20

The NPRM asked interested parties to submit comments providing support, opposition,clarification, or correction regarding the proposed classes of works, and to provide factual and/or
legal arguments in support of their positions. The Copyright Office received a total of fifty-six
responsive comments before the comment period closed on February 2, 2009, all of which wereposted on the Copyright Office website.56
On March 9, 2009, the Register published a Notice that public hearings would be
conducted at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California and at the Library of Congress inWashington, DC in May 2009. Persons wishing to testify were asked to submit their requests totestify by April 3, 2009.57 The Register conducted public hearings on four separate days: at
Stanford University on May 1, 2009, and at the Library of Congress on May 6, 7, and 8, 2009.
Thirty-seven witnesses, representing proponents and opponents of proposed classes of works,
testified on twenty-one proposed classes. Written transcripts of the hearings were posted on the
Copyright Office website, along with audio recordings of most of the hearing sessions.58
Following the hearings, the Copyright Office sent questions pertaining to certain issues toall of the witnesses who had testified regarding those issues. The purposes of these written
inquiries were to: (1) clarify for the record certain statements made during the hearings; (2) elicit
responses to questions raised by hearing testimony; (3) gather information on the operation of
specific technologies, and (4) foster reactions to potential alternatives to specific proposed classesof works. The post-hearing questions from the Copyright Office and the responses from the56

Section 1201 Comments at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/index.html. (Last visited

4/30/10.)57

Notice of Public Hearings, 74 Fed. Reg. 10,096 (Mar. 9, 2009).

58
Section 1201 Rulemaking Hearings at
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/hearings/2009/transcripts/index.html. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

In referring to the comments and hearing materials, the following abbreviations and conventions are used herein: CInitial Comment, i.e., a comment proposing a class of works; R - Reply to Comment, and T-Transcript. Comment
numbers correspond to the number in the indices of comments found at
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/index.html (Last visited 4/30/10.) andhttp://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/index.html. (Last visited 4/30/10.) References to the transcripts
include the name of the witness, the date of the testimony, and the pages of the transcript. Hence, a reference to “C6(Montoro) at 1" is a reference to the initial comment of Joseph Montoro at page 1. A reference to “T Metalitz,
5/8/09, at 55-56" is a reference to the transcript of the testimony of Steven Metalitz on May 8, 2009, at pages 55-56.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 21

witnesses have been posted on the Copyright Office website.59
Following the posting of the responses to Copyright Office questions, Virgin Mobile
petitioned the Register to consider additional evidence responsive to allegations contained in the
response of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The Register granted Virgin Mobile’s
request and provided the Electronic Frontier Foundation with an opportunity to respond to Virgin
Mobile’s submission. Both parties agreed that the evidentiary dispute did not affect the interestsof any other proponents or opponents, and an assessment of the filings supported this assertion.
These filings have also been posted on the Copyright Office’s website.60
On October 27, 2009, the Librarian of Congress published in the Federal Register a Noticeof an interim rule, extending the existing classes of works exempted from the prohibition until theconclusion of the current rulemaking proceeding and the designation of any classes of works to be
exempt from the prohibition for the ensuing three-year period by the Librarian of Congress.61
III.

THE DESIGNATED CLASSES

A.

Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that areprotected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention isaccomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portionsof motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment,
and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonablegrounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of
the use in the following instances:•

Educational uses by college and university professors and by college

59

U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Office Questions and Responses at
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/questions/index.html. (Last visited 4/30/10.) References to post-hearing
comments include the name of the person or organization submitting the comment, the topic of the comment and thedate the comment was submitted. Hence, a reference to Response of Decherney to Copyright Office Questions
Relating to DVDs of May 9, 2009, at 1-2 is a reference to pages 1-2 of the response submitted by Decherney on May
9, 2009, to post-hearing questions from the Copyright Office.
60

See Petition by Virgin Mobile and Response by the Electronic Frontier Foundation at
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/8_28_reponses/virgin-mobile.pdf (Last visited 4/30/10.) andhttp://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/9_21_responses/eff.pdf. (Last visited 4/30/10.)
61

See Federal Register Notice of Interim Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 55,138 (Oct. 27, 2009) at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2009/74fr55138.pdf. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 22and university film and media studies students;•

Documentary filmmaking;•Noncommercial videos

Background. Eight proposals were submitted requesting the designation of classes ofworks in order to allow the circumvention of audiovisual works for educational purposes by botheducators and students. These proposals follow on the heels of the Register’s 2006 designation ofa class of “[a]udiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film
or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making
compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies orfilm professors.”
Two additional proposals were submitted to designate classes of works relating to CSSprotected DVDs.62 One proposal sought designation of a class to allow qualified documentary
filmmakers to circumvent the CSS encryption on DVDs when the motion pictures are notcommercially available in unprotected DVD format, and when substantial production hascommenced on the documentary film.63 Another proposal related to noncommercial,transformative use of motion pictures on CSS-protected DVDs for the creation of noncommercial
videos.64 Because of the similar factual and legal issues raised by these proposals, the Register
has considered them together. The proposed classes were:
4A. Commercially produced DVDs used in face–to–face classroom teaching by college anduniversity faculty, regardless of discipline or subject taught, as well as by teachers in K–12
classrooms.
4B. Audiovisual works used by instructors at accredited colleges or universities to createcompilations of short portions of motion pictures for use in the course of face–to–faceteaching activities.
4C. Audiovisual works that illustrate and/or relate to contemporary social issues used for the62

CSS is an acronym for “Content Scrambling System.” CSS is an encryption-based system that employs
an algorithm to encrypt the contents of a DVD. See, infra, for more information on this type of TPM.
63

C11B (Kartemquin Educational Films, Inc. and International Documentary Association) (hereinafter“Kartemquin”).
64

C11A (EFF).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 23

purpose of teaching the process of accessing, analyzing, evaluating, and communicating
messages in different forms of media.
4D. Audiovisual works that illustrate and/or relate to contemporary social issues used for the
purpose of studying the process of accessing, analyzing, evaluating and communicating
messages in different forms of media, and that are of particular relevance to a specificeducational assignment, when such uses are made with the prior approval of the instructor.
4E. Audiovisual works contained in a college or university library, when circumvention isaccomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works foreducational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.
4F. Audiovisual works contained in a college or university library, when circumvention isaccomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works forcoursework by media studies or film students.
4G. Audiovisual works included in a library of a college or university, when circumvention isaccomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works foreducational use in the classroom by professors.
4H. All audiovisual works and sound recordings ‘used in face–to–face classroom teaching bycollege and university faculty, regardless of discipline or subject taught’ and regardless of thesource of the legally acquired item.
11A. Audiovisual works released on DVD, where circumvention is undertaken solely for the
purpose of extracting clips for inclusion in noncommercial videos that do not infringe
copyright.
11B. Motion pictures and other audiovisual works in the form of Digital Versatile Discs(DVDs) that are not generally available commercially to the public in a DVD form notprotected by Content Scramble System technology when a documentary filmmaker, who is amember of an organization of filmmakers, or is enrolled in a film program or film production
course at a post-secondary educational institution, is accessing material for use in a specificdocumentary film for which substantial production has commenced, where the material is in
the public domain or will be used in compliance with the doctrine of fair use as defined byfederal case law and 17 U.S.C. § 107.
1.

Proposed Classes for Educational Purposes

Overview and Comments. In the 2006 proceeding, three professors of film and media
studies from the University of Pennsylvania’s Cinema Studies Program and Annenberg School
for Communication asserted that:Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 24in order to teach their classes effectively, they need to be able to createcompilations of portions of motion pictures distributed on DVDs protected by CSS
for purposes of classroom performance. They also asserted that in order to show
pedagogically necessary, high quality content in a reasonably efficient manner,
they must circumvent CSS in order to extract the portions of motion pictures oraudiovisual works necessary for their pedagogical purposes.65
The Register found that the proponents convincingly demonstrated that the use alleged tobe adversely affected was indeed noninfringing. Performing or displaying portions or individual
images from motion pictures “in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit
educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction” is noninfringing
under Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act.66 Furthermore, the Register determined that the
reproduction of such portions or images into compilations was in many cases a fair use of the
motion pictures under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.67
In addition, the Register undertook an extensive inquiry into the text and legislative
history of the statutory category “class of works” and determined that, while a class must be
initially based upon the inherent qualities of the works themselves, and may also be refined byreference to the access controls applied to the works and/or the formats in which the works are
distributed (the approach taken in 2000 and 2003), it may also be, in certain cases, appropriate tofurther tailor a class based upon the use that is being adversely affected by the prohibition on
circumvention and/or upon the user who finds his or her noninfringing use adversely affected.68
65

See Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights in RM 2005-11, Rulemaking on Exemptions from
Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control, Nov. 17, 2006,
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/1201_recommendation.pdf, at 13 (hereinafter “2006 Recommendation of theRegister of Copyrights”).
66

Id. at 13-14.

67

Id.

68

See id. at 18-19 (“The tailoring of a ‘class’ is supposed to be remedial for those users who are adversely
affected by the prohibition. Unless a ‘class’ may describe those uses or users, the regulatory language will notalways clearly identify the intended recipients of the remedial exemption. While it is certainly possible, as our pastrulemakings have demonstrated, to craft a properly tailored exemption without reference to a particular use or users,
in other cases, such as the one here at issue, failing to specify the use or users for whom the exemption was found to
be warranted would result in an unnecessarily broad exemption. Further, if a class is too broad, it will often entail
undesirable consequences. If those consequences are such that they would lead to undue harm to copyright owners,
it may be difficult to justify the exemption at all. Were that the result, the rulemaking proceeding would not be
operating as the fail-safe mechanism that Congress intended it to be. Therefore, depending upon the circumstances, it
can be appropriate to refine a class by reference to the use or user in order to remedy the adverse effect of theRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 25

Because the proposal was narrowly tailored with regard to a discrete set of users who had
demonstrated a sufficient need to circumvent DVD access controls for limited noninfringing
purposes that are entitled to special consideration under Section 1201(a)(1)(C), and because suchtailoring greatly reduced the risk that the circumvention would be for improper purposes or would
lead to large-scale circulation of unprotected, digital motion pictures, potentially deterring further
rights-holder investment in DVD creation or distribution, the Register found that thecircumvention of CSS on DVDs for the purpose of classroom instruction was proper. In addition,
the record in the rulemaking demonstrated that the pedagogical needs of film and media studies
professors could not be met by analog VHS tapes or by recording the works from the televisionscreen with a video camera because (1) the nature of the courses required high-quality images andsound and (2) DVDs frequently contain extra features not found on VHS tapes. As the Register
stated,[F]or older works, the DVD version of a motion picture can preserve the color
balance and aspect ratio to accurately reflect how the original work would haveappeared when it was originally released in theaters. The record does not reveal
sufficient viable alternatives to the DVD version of the motion pictures for thispurpose. For instance, VHS versions of the films altered the color balance andaspect ratio. Similarly, the demonstration at the hearing of screen shots with adigital video recorder revealed dramatic color distortions and greatly reduced
picture quality. While these options may have satisfied the needs of many types ofnoninfringing users and even many noninfringing educational uses – e.g., thosewanting to comment on the historical context of a film or create a parody, or toshow a film clip in a class unrelated to cinematographic significance61 – thereduced quality of alternative formats was wholly insufficient for the pedagogical
purposes for which the clips were sought in film and media studies classes.69
The Register also relied on evidence that demonstrated the need for film and media studies
professors to circumvent CSS in order to extract DVD clips for compilations to be shown in theclassroom, as opposed to inserting single DVDs in succession, a practice that would force thestudents to sit through introductory screens that CSS prevents users from skipping. “[F]or the film
and media professors’ intended use,” wrote the Register in 2006, “these screens waste valuableclass time. The larger the number of DVDs that need to be shown, the greater the amount of classtime spent watching material that serves no pedagogical purpose.”70 The record revealed that if aprohibition and to limit the adverse consequences of an exemption.”).
69

Id. at 20.

70

Id. at 23.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 26

film professor wanted to show ten 30-second clips in a class session of 50 minutes, the amount oftime spent shuffling DVDs into and out of the DVD player would represent “[t]en percent ofeducational classroom time [which] is a significant social expenditure, particularly whenclassroom time is a limited and precious resource.”71
The eight proposals the Copyright Office received in 2009 for classes of audiovisual
works for educational uses all seek to build upon the 2006 film and media studies class to apply tobroader categories of users and uses. For ease of reference the Copyright Office identified these
proposals as numbers 4A through 4H.
Proposal 4E was, with one change, a duplication of the 2006 film and media studies classof works, and was proposed by the same three University of Pennsylvania professors, joined inthis rulemaking by the International Communication Association and the Society for Cinema andMedia Studies.72 The difference in the 2009 proposal was an expansion from audiovisual works
contained in “the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies
department” to those contained in “a college or university library.” Proponents of the classasserted that limiting the source of audiovisual works to those in the collections of specialized
libraries would unduly restrict the range of titles available for pedagogical use, without any
corresponding benefit to rights-holders.73 If a college or university has already purchased a work
for its main (or sole) library, then professors already enjoy legal access to that work, theproponents pointed out, and forcing a school to purchase a separate copy for a specialized libraryis a waste of scarce resources.74 In addition, noted the proponents, many schools lack dedicatedand separate film and/or media studies libraries altogether.75
In support of designating the existing classes again for the ensuing three year period, theproponents presented evidence that the designation of the existing class of works has been a great
boon to film and media professors during its three year term,76 as well as evidence that the same71

Id. at 21, 24.

72

C4E & 4F (Decherney) at 1.

73

Id. at 15.

74

Id. at 14.

75

Id. at 14-15.

76

Id. at 2-3.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 27

circumstances that prompted its approval in 2006 are still present in 2009, and are likely toremain in effect for the next three years. The need for film and media studies professors to createhigh-quality clip compilations has not changed since 2006, and the proponents argued thatcircumvention of access-protected audiovisual works is the only way in which to obtain copies ofthe desired content with sufficient quality. Many audiovisual works, they asserted, are only
available on DVDs, and the extra features on DVDs remain unavailable on any other medium.77
For those works available on alternative media, such as VHS or YouTube, the quality isinadequate for the intended purpose.78
At the hearings in Palo Alto and Washington, representatives of copyright owners argued
that the proposed classes relating to DVDs should not be designated if alternative means ofengaging in the noninfringing uses are available. Much of the discussion at the Washington
hearings focused on two means of copying film clips from DVDs that do not appear to involve
circumvention of CSS: the capturing of audiovisual content either (1) by camcording or (2) byusing video capture software. Both of these methods involve reproducing the content of a DVD
after it has been legitimately decrypted, and thus without circumvention. Camcording involves
pointing a digital video camera at a television screen showing a performance of the desired work.
The resulting copy can be uploaded to a computer where, free of access or copy controls, it can beedited as needed.79 At the hearings in Washington, the MPAA demonstrated the quality of video
that could be obtained by filming a flat screen television, and showed a video of how it prepared
its demonstrative evidence.
The second method—using video capture software—is roughly analogous to camcording
in that it reproduces the information stored on a DVD as it is being shown on a screen, and does
not access digital content on the disc itself. Video capture software, however, uses software tocopy the information, so the reproduction occurs entirely inside the computer. Different video
capture programs capture digital signals in different ways, but the fundamental process is that thecomputer’s licensed DVD player decrypts the content, which is sent to the computer’s video cardand software driver, and from there is sent to the screen. The video capture software copies thecontent as it is being rendered in unencrypted format to the screen.
77

Id. at 10-12.

78

Id. at 5-7; 12.

79

See Ts Attaway & Seymour, 5/6/09, at 207-10 (MPAA demonstration of how to make a camcorded
screen shot and what the resulting copy looks like.)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 28

Proponents of class 4E and of the other Category 4 classes considered these twoalternative methods of making film clips to be unacceptable due to poor image and sound quality.
While proponents of class 4E noted that the quality of the camcording output as shown by the
MPAA had improved since 2006, they also stated that it remained inadequate for film and media
studies classroom use:[T]hey were using a telephoto lens, and there was noticeable distortion . . . there
was discoloration; there was a reddish cast to the images; they were still a little
muddy and blurred, and you can see bleed-through in the lines . . . especiallybecause they were showing dark scenes, there is actually a lot of detail that . . .
apparently wasn’t captured by the camcorder.80
At the hearings in Palo Alto, CA and in Washington, DC, the Copyright Officedemonstrated the results of the use of video capture software and asked a number of questions ofboth proponents and opponents of the proposed classes of works.81 The line of questions posed tothe opponents of the proposed classes related to whether or not video capture software violated
the prohibition on circumvention. At both hearings, opponents of the classes were unwilling toprovide a definitive answer to this question. After the hearings, a series of questions were sent toall hearing participants involved in the DVD-related panels in order to clarify whether using
video capture software violated the prohibition on circumvention in Section 1201(a)(1), and toclarify whether such software captures were, or could be, sufficient for various uses that were
alleged to be adversely affected by the prohibition.82 The general response was that a number offorms of video capture software do not circumvent any access controls and thus do not violate theprohibition.83
Despite the clarification of the legality of video capture software and the use of the80

T Decherney, 5/6/09, at 242.

81
The particular software used in the demonstration was Snagit. T Kasunic, 5/1/09, at 57-59; T Kasunic,
5/6/09, at 244-45. For more information on Snagit, see http://www.techsmith.com/screen-capture.asp. (Last visited
4/30/10.)82

The questions posed and responses received are available in their entirety on the Copyright Office’s
website. See http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/questions/index.html. (Last visited 4/30/10.)
83

The respondents qualified this legal analysis by noting that they did not examine every screen capture
program available, and were limited to publicly available information regarding the programs they did examine.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 29

software, the proponents of the classes stated that video capture software produced less-thanuseful results:
The frame rate is often reduced. Even when the frame rate is very high, the timingof the action can be distorted, creating staccato or jerky motion. More importantly,
pieces of the video are simply missing. These “holes” in the video can beparticularly noticeable when analyzing a work of animation or claymation, in
which every frame has been composed individually by the filmmakers. It seems
surprising that educators in any field would be asked to teach works with missing
pieces.84
Proponents of the classes reiterated their view that no DVD player on the market gave
professors the flexibility to create compilations of multiple film clips or spared them from wastingclass time by switching among separate discs, noting that the available models only accepted one
disc at a time.85 They also asserted that licensing the use of clips from the rights-holders was an“invalid” alternative because it would retard the spontaneity needed for effective classroom
discussions,86 because it presented a risk that rights-holders might withhold permission for a use
they did not approve of,87 and because the licensing process was labyrinthine and too timeconsuming.88
Finally, some proponents for redesignation of the film and media studies class made clearthat it should not be restricted to CSS-protected DVDs, but also apply to Blu-ray discs, streaming
digital media, and all forms of audiovisual content that require circumvention in order to makeclip compilations.89 The examples cited in favor of the proposed class, however, concerned only
DVDs.
Copyright owners who commented on the proposed redesignation of the film and media

84

Post-Hearing Response of Decherney to Copyright Office Questions Relating to Video Capture
Software of July 9, 2009, at 1-2.
85

C4E & 4F (Decherney) at 8.

86

Id. at 9.

87

Id.

88

See T Decherney, 5/6/09, at 114.

89

See, e.g., C4E & 4F (Decherney), at 7, 10, 12; T Decherney, 5/6/09, at 115-116.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 30

studies class did not, in principle, oppose redesignation of the class for another three years;90 nor
did they oppose the expansion to include audiovisual works contained in a college or university
library.91 However, several commenters representing, among others, motion picture studios,recommended that the class be explicitly narrowed in five respects: (1) to apply only toaudiovisual works on CSS-protected DVDs; (2) to apply only when circumvention is “truly
necessary,” such as when the material is not reasonably available through a consensual path;92 (3)to apply only when “all existing digital copies of a work contain access controls that prevent” thecreation of clip compilations; (4) to clarify that it applies “solely” for the stated purpose; and (5)to clarify that the circumvention itself, as well as the classroom use, may only be undertaken byfilm and media studies professors.93
Proposals 4A through 4D and 4F through 4H sought the same fundamental outcome as 4E,
circumvention of audiovisual works for educational purposes, but offered different classes ofworks. Because these proposals shared among themselves many of the same elements of a classof works, and many of the same rationales for defining a class of works by these elements, thefollowing review is organized not by proposal, but by elements of the classes sought to be
exempted.
a.

Inherent attributes and media of the work

The proponents of the classes relating to educational uses of DVDs tended to define theirclasses initially in terms of “audiovisual works.” However, their comments and testimony
focused almost entirely on motion pictures94 in the form of CSS-protected DVDs. The proponents
marshaled substantial evidence of the pervasiveness and importance of audiovisual material in90
See, e.g., R37 (DVD CCA) at 16; R45 (MPAA) at 10-11; R46 (Joint Creators) at 29; R48 (TimeWarner) at 9.
91

See, e.g., R46 (Joint Creators), at 30, n.54.

92

Several motion picture industry commenters described a film clip service being designed by the MPAA
and the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts (“USC”) that would provide film professors withfree online access to full length films and short clips for educational use. It was proposed that, once this service isoperative, the class of works should be limited to works not available through the service. See, e.g., R45 (MPAA) at
10-11; R48 (Time Warner) at 9.
93

94

See R46 (Joint Creators) at 29-30; R45 (MPAA) at 11.

Under the copyright law “motion pictures” constitute a subset, but a very large subset, of the categoryof “audiovisual works.” See, infra, for a fuller discussion.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 31contemporary education, and further argued that, given this state of affairs, such material should
be of a high quality in terms of both image and sound.95 The proponents asserted that only DVDs
provide the necessary quality, and only DVDs are amenable to the kind of clip extraction andediting required for instructors to create compilations that allow the comparison and analysis ofmultiple audiovisual works without wasting class time.96 Specifically, the proponents criticized
camcording, Hulu, and YouTube as poor alternatives given, respectively, their expense and lower
quality, inability to edit, and lack of selection.97 The proponents also pointed out that DVDs arepresently the default format for audiovisual works, having completely eclipsed VHS tapes, which
no longer exist as a viable, unprotected, alternative.98b.

Source of the work

The current film and media studies class includes only DVDs “included in the educational
library of a college or university’s film or media studies department.” Such restriction of theclass to DVDs housed in a library or another specific location was omitted from some of the
proposals for expanded classes of works for educational circumvention.99 One proposal,
however, suggested that the DVDs should be “legally acquired,”100 and two others suggested thesame standard as proposal 4E, location in a “college or university library.”101c.

Use and user of the work

In order for a class of works to be designated in this rulemaking, it must be shown that theprohibition on circumvention adversely affects the noninfringing use of the work. Many of the95

See, e.g., T Hobbs, 5/6/09, at 238-40 (on the need for clear image in order to do a “careful visual
analysis” in Media Literacy classes); T Skalbeck, 5/6/09, at 166-7 (on the need for high quality images in copyright
law classes); T Band, 5/6/09, at 123-24 (on the need for high quality image and sound quality in criminal justiceclasses); T Kaiser, 5/1/09, at 49 (on the need for high quality audio tracks in foreign language classes).
96

See, e.g., C4B (Smith) at 4; C4C & 4D (Hobbs) at 15-16; T Kaiser, 5/1/09, at 24-25.

97

See T Handman, 5/1/09, at 18-19; T De Kosnik, 5/1/09, at 47; R32 (BYU) at 4.

98

See, e.g., C4C & 4D (Hobbs) at 14-15.

99

See proposed classes of works, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D, filed in this proceeding.

100

C4H (Fedak).

101

C4E & 4F (Decherney); C4G (Libraries).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 32

proposed classes of works are, and will continue to be, used for classroom instruction.102 Suchuses are, like the uses approved in the 2006 film and media studies class of works, noninfringing
by virtue of the Section 110(1) face-to-face teaching exception (performance of works in thecourse of face-to-face teaching activities) as well as fair use under Section 107 (reproducing
portions of motion pictures for inclusion in compilations for classroom performance).103 In
addition, two proposals concerned the use of protected DVDs by students in completing assigned
projects and other coursework.104 Proponents asserted that use of copyrighted DVDs by students
in fulfilling course assignments is noninfringing on the same fair use grounds as the clip
compilation activities covered by the 2006 film and media studies class of works.105 Proponents
also argued that the Section 110 exceptions apply to performances and displays by pupils as well
as by instructors, provided that the performance or display constitutes a “teaching activity.”106
Beyond the threshold question of whether Section 1201(a)(1)(A) negatively affects, or is
likely to affect, the noninfringing use of a class of works, the nature of the use and user ofprotected works can be relevant to the construction of the exempted class itself. Proponents ofthe educational exemptions sought to refine their proposed classes by reference to expandedgroups of uses and users beyond those included in the 2006 class of works. Regarding the natureof the use, they argued that all disciplines taught at all levels of education rely upon audiovisual
works, and that the inability to circumvent DVDs in order to make classroom compilations
adversely affects the pedagogical needs of instructors across the educational spectrum. As one
commenter put it:
Since most DVD’s are encrypted medium, Section 1201 prevents instructors fromcompiling film clips for non-infringing teaching purposes. Thus, the demise of
VHS dissolves the distinction between film and media studies and other specificsubject areas because the pedagogical need for audiovisual works has become
inseparably connected to and only satisfied through use of technologically102

See proposed classes of works, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4E, 4G, and 4H, filed in this proceeding.

103

See, e.g., C4C & 4D (Hobbs) at 9-14.

104

See proposed classes of works, 4D and 4F, filed in this proceeding.

105

See C4C & 4D (Hobbs) at 9-14 (using same fair use analysis for teacher and student use of DVD

106

Id. at 10.

clips).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 33

protected DVDs.107
In particular, many proponents explained that film and media studies are not the only
courses to rely upon audiovisual works as primary texts. Thus, they maintain, the need to closely
examine the details and artistic choices of a film that were central to the Register’s decision in2006 are also present in Media Literacy, English, Foreign Language, and multidisciplinary
courses.108
Regarding the need to create clip compilations of DVD content in non-film and media
studies environments, proponents of the class made the point that the problem of serially showing
multiple DVDs without the ability to skip the preliminary screens or pre-cue the desired scenes
was a significant waste of class time regardless of the subject being taught.109 It should also be
noted, however, that some of the proponents cited examples that did not involve multiple works,
but only involved performing a single portion of a work in a classroom.110
One particularly contentious expansion of the 2006 film and media studies class of works
proposed in the current rulemaking was the inclusion of student uses within the exempted class ofworks. The proposals regarding circumvention for use in college and university film and media
studies courses and in media literacy education courses at all educational levels urged that, inorder to prepare and perform coursework assigned by the relevant instructor, students enrolled inthese classes should be permitted to circumvent access controls on audiovisual works.111
Examples presented of the kind of student work that is adversely affected by the current inability
to legally circumvent audiovisual works included critical mash-ups, voiceover commentary, andvideo essays.112 In one particularly vivid illustration, Professor Decherney of the University ofPennsylvania testified to the inadequacy of broadcast and YouTube clips as incorporated into a
student work:107

R32 (BYU) at 4.

108

See, e.g., C4B (Smith) at 2; C4C & 4D (Hobbs) at 7; C4G (Libraries) at 10-11.

109See, e.g., C4C & 4D (Hobbs) at 16.

110

See, e.g., C4G (Libraries) at 5-6; T Skalbeck, 5/6/09, at 162-63.

111

See C4C & 4D (Hobbs) at 18; C4E & 4F (Decherney) at 16-18.

112

See C4E & 4F (Decherney) at 16; T Decherney, 5/6/09, at 119.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 34

The power of blood spewing from a severed arm, and the impact of a gun being
placed in a young boy’s mouth were nullified by the muddy, pixilated images thatthey had to use. It was a clear case . . . in which high-quality digital clips wereabsolutely necessary.113
While conceding that the reproduction of portions of motion pictures by instructors andstudents may often fall within fair use and that the public performance of these portions foreducational purposes in the classroom falls within the exemption in Section 110(1) of the
Copyright Act,114 opponents maintained that circumvention was not necessary to achieve thedesired uses.
First, opponents challenged the assertion that non-film and media studies classes require
DVD-level quality to meet their pedagogical goals.115 Proceeding from this premise, they asserted
that, despite the demise of an analog alternative in the form of VHS tapes, many other noncircumventing options remain, including YouTube, camcording, and requesting permission fromrights-holders.116 Opponents also noted that allowing such a broad exemption presents a risk oflegitimizing illegal circumvention tools and services to such a degree that the entire CSS legal
and technical regime would be undermined.117
Regarding some of the specific elements of the classes of works sought to be exempted,
opponents asserted that only the creation and subsequent classroom performance of clip
compilations fit within the Register’s 2006 approach to defining a class of works. To omit thecompilation element (as proposals 4A, 4C, 4D, and 4H do) would, in their view, “result inaclass of works

that is primarily based on a type of use

or user rather than a category of works. 118 Furthermore, theopponents maintained that those proposals, such as 4B, that sought an class that covered K-12
instructors, failed to provide any examples where the circumvention ban has adversely affected
113

T Decherney, 5/6/09, at 119.

114

See T Metalitz, 5/6/09, at 196.

115

See, e.g., T Metalitz, 5/1/09, at 42-43.

116

See, e.g., R37 (DVD CCA) at 20; T Metalitz, 5/1/09, at 40-41.

117

See R37 (DVD CCA) at 21.

118

See R46 (Joint Creators) at 33.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 35

noninfringing uses in that sector.119
In addition to opposing designation of a broad class of audiovisual works for educational
uses, commenters from motion picture studios and other rights-holders strongly opposed
extending any class to uses by students. Their primary concern was that such an extension would
lead to widespread confusion over whether a particular use fell within the scope of the class andover the legality of circumvention in general.120 The opponents also pointed out that while thelimited category of beneficiaries of the class designated in 2006 were familiar with the DMCA
and had incentives to act responsibly, those characteristics do not apply to the vast majority ofstudents.1212.

Proposed Class for Documentary Filmmakers

Comments. Proponents of an class for the benefit of documentary filmmakers claimed
that in the course of producing their films, documentary filmmakers often must make fair use of
portions of creative works for criticism or analysis of the works themselves, or to make social
commentary generally. They stated that the prohibition on circumvention is “crippling
filmmakers’ abilities to make fair use of works and to use public domain materials.”122
Proponents also stated that alternative formats are no longer available for the vast majority of
motion pictures.123
In response, the Joint Creators and Copyright Owners124 stated that the proponents had
failed to identify a particular noninfringing use that is being adversely affected by the119

See id.

120

See, e.g., R37 (DVD CCA) at 22-23.

121

See R45 (MPAA) at 11.

122

See C11B (Kartemquin) at 1.

123

Id. at 3, noting that in 2008, Amazon revealed that only seven titles were released in VHS format, andthat in 2009, of the 1950 titles slated for release, only one was announced to be released in VHS format.
124
The self-styled “Joint Creators and Copyright Owners” (referred to herein as “Joint Creators”) are a
coalition of copyright industry trade organizations – the Association of American Publishers (“AAP”), American
Society of Media Photographers (“ASMP”), Alliance of Visual Artists (“AVA”), Business Software Alliance(“BSA”), the Directors Guild of America (“DGA”), the Entertainment Software Association (“ESA”), Motion
Picture Association of America (“MPAA”), the Picture Archive Council of America (“PACA”), and Recording
Industry Association of America (“RIAA”).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 36

prohibition.125 The opponents also stated that to the extent that the case for designating the
proposed class is aimed at public domain content, it is outside the scope of the rulemaking,because public domain material is not protected by the prohibition. The opponents also argued
that the case-by-case nature of fair use precludes documentary filmmakers from asserting that theuse of portions of motion pictures in documentary films is generally fair use. They argued that, at
most, filmmakers can argue that some such uses will be considered fair. The opponents asserted
that the uncertain nature of the noninfringing status precludes articulation of an appropriate classof work “for which circumvention would lead only to noninfringing conduct,” or that would becharacterized as “clearly” or “generally” noninfringing.126 The Joint Creators also cited American
University’s Center for Social Media’s analysis for the fact that few infringement cases have beenbrought against documentary filmmakers and that none of the plaintiffs have been motion picturestudios or large archives.127
The proponents of the class for documentary filmmakers argued that alternative means ofcopying the content on CSS-protected DVDs are insufficient for documentary filmmakers’
purposes because the three analog alternatives to circumvention result in, inter alia, degraded orseverely degraded quality reproductions.128 The degradation is noticeable on a small screen, but
becomes pronounced when viewed on a large screen television or in a theater.129 Additionally,
proponents stated that because all DVDs incorporate Macrovision’s Analog Copy Protection(“ACP”) technology, the alternative analog transfer methods discussed by the proponents must be
run through a visual stabilizer or a digital time base corrector in order to remove ACP from thesignal sent by the DVD player. Proponents asserted that these devices are not readily available
and all but one manufacturer has stopped producing them. Even when ACP can be avoided, thefilmmaker will still encounter problems maintaining audio sync and frame rate between the DVD
player and the recording device.130
The opponents of the proposed class argued that despite the proponents’ discussion of125

R46 (Joint Creators) at 67.

126

Id. at 68.

127

Id. at n. 102.

128

C11B (Kartemquin) at 6-7. The alternatives listed include: (1) “VHS capture”; (2) “scan conversion”
or filming the screen; and (3) “analog transfer” which uses a VCR to capture the output of a DVD player.
129

Id. at 7.

130

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 37

three analog alternatives, the proponents “fail to discuss in much detail the most salient
alternative method of making a noninfringing use of audiovisual material, which is to obtainfootage directly from the copyright owners.”131 Opponents stated that filmmakers have failed toprove that they could not obtain the portions of motion pictures sought directly from copyrightowners and thus have failed to make their case. Moreover, the opponents stated “that digital
camcorders are increasingly capable of capturing very high quality images, particularly in thehands of skilled filmmakers.”132 The Joint Creators concluded by stating that although they do notbelieve that documentary filmmakers have made their case, in the event that the Librarian
designates a class, it should be narrowly tailored. One suggestion for tailoring any class was toinclude a requirement of a good faith effort to obtain the unencrypted material from the copyrightowner. The opponents also urged the Librarian to omit any reference in description of the class tofair use as the underlying basis of the noninfringing use. They stated that the use enabled bycircumvention must be in fact noninfringing.133
3.

Proposed Class Relating to Noncommercial, Transformative Videos

Comments. Another proposed class involving CSS-protected DVDs related to the ability
to circumvent CSS in order to use portions of motion pictures in noncommercial videos that do
not infringe copyright.134 The creation of noncommercial videos that are, at least in some cases,transformative of prior works incorporated into the new work are sometimes referred to as “vids”
by their creators (known as “vidders”) and admirers.
As a general matter, vids involve the remixing and/or modification of a preexisting workor works in order to criticize or comment upon some aspect of the underlying works, such as aparody or a review, or to make a broader societal statement, perhaps in the form of a satire. While
it is possible to criticize or comment upon the source works in textual form, vidders believe thatthe audiovisual medium provide a more appropriate form of commentary in which to express theirpoint of view.135 “Vids are commentaries; executed in a visual medium rather than in text, on the131

R46 (Joint Creators) at 69.

132

Id. at 70.

133

Id.

134

C11A (EFF) at 18.

135

Id. at 17.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 38

original source material—sometimes celebrating or criticizing political, sexual, or culturalelements that were obvious in the original, sometimes uncovering meanings that were latent in theoriginal; and sometimes creating entirely new meanings with the characters and plotlines of theoriginal.”136
It is difficult to generalize on the precise attributes of a “typical vid.” The proponents
proffer numerous examples for the record and cite research on a number of general categories ofvids that involve some form of criticism or comment. One category consists of movie trailer
remixes, which are original compilations of scenes, made for movie fans and often with ahumorous purpose.137 Another category involves film analysis in which amateur critics provide
commentary over clips from the films being analyzed.138 Vids of movie mistakes are also a distinct
genre that comment on anachronisms, continuity errors and other “mistakes” found in films andtelevision programs. Another genre is political commentary that uses clips from film or television
to illustrate a particular political message. Other vids criticize the underlying themes or politics ofa film or a group of films. Still another genre exists in which the vidder comments on the remix
culture itself, mocking the sometimes low technical and aesthetic standards of remixes. Thus,
while vids may use one work or a number of works, or may use one clip or many clips from awork, all of the vids within the scope of the proposal are distributed noncommercially for a new
and different purpose from the original work or works. In essence, it was alleged that vids utilize
preexisting motion pictures (and often sound recordings of musical works unrelated to the motion
picture soundtrack) in order to comment upon the work or broader social themes—as a form ofvideo quotation.
The proponents of this class argued that while not all noncommercial videos arenoninfringing, some number of vids invariably qualify as noninfringing uses given the scope of
136

Id., quoting Professor Francesca Coppa.

137

See C11A (EFF) at 15-16 for links to examples of each of these genres.

138

There are also references to critics who provide commentary over the course of entire motion pictures,as opposed to commentary over portions of motion pictures. See, e.g., Post-Hearing Response of EFF andOrganization of Transformative Works (“OTW”) to Copyright Office Questions relating to DVDs of August 21,
2009, at 4. It is highly questionable whether a commentary combined with an entire film would be considered a fairuse. It is also clear that there are alternative means of achieving the same goal, as the EFF response itself noted inrelation to Roger Ebert’s article. See id at 3-4. See also, www.rifftrax.com (Last visited 4/30/10.), that offers mp3
discussions that can be synchronized with the playback of a motion picture on a DVD in order to hear simultaneous
humorous commentary over the course of an entire film. However, given fair use precedent in the courts, theRegister accepts that commentary merged with a portion of a DVD may qualify as a fair use in particular cases. See,
infra.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 39

vidding: “[s]ome remix videos doubtless infringe copyrights; others, thanks to the fair use
doctrine, just as surely do not.”139 Conceding that not all vids are noninfringing, and generally
applying a fair use analysis to the typical vid, the proponents asserted that “the generalcharacteristics of these videos make it clear that many qualify as noninfringing fair uses under
existing precedents.”140 The proponents also presented evidence from a study by Professor
Michael Wesch concluding that, based on a random sample of 240 videos uploaded to YouTube,
7.5% of those videos were remixes of preexisting motion pictures taken from DVDs.141 If thispercentage is applied to the number of videos uploaded to YouTube each day, statistically, ittranslates into potentially 15,000 vids incorporating motion pictures on DVDs each day.142 A
subsequent sampling yielded a slightly reduced percentage, leading to the estimation that theactual daily average of vids uploaded to YouTube was between 2,000 and 6,000.143 Moreover, theproponents argued that all of the fair use factors generally weigh in favor of fair use when applied
to the typical vid.
A threshold question that requires evaluation is whether vidders are making or likely tomake noninfringing uses of copyrighted works. The only exception to copyright owners’
exclusive rights that would apply to this activity is fair use, and therefore, the mandatory fourfactor analysis is required. Proponents of this class of works contended that the four statutory fairuse factors support the assertion that the use of clips from motion pictures by vidders generally
may be a fair use.
The proponents argued that under the first factor, the noncommercial nature of vids tends
to support a finding of fair use.144 This conclusion, they asserted, is bolstered by the fact that mostvids are “by their nature, transformative, creating a new work that does not substitute for the139

C11A (EFF) at 13.

140

Id. at 18.

141

Id. at 29, Appendix A.

142

Id.

143

Id.

144

Opponents of the proposed class claim that this noncommercial status is questionable given the indirectadvertising revenue received from online video distributors. See R46 (Joint Creators) at 66. Opponents do not,however, show why a vidder stands in the shoes of the website rendering the works for purposes of the underlying
fair use analysis.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 40

original.”145 They supported this claim of transformativeness with the observation that vids “arefrequently parodic, satiric, or created for purposes of commentary or criticism, precisely the kindof transformative uses that have been treated favorably by courts with respect to the first
factor.”146 The proponents not only cited illustrations of potential noninfringing uses, but more
broadly argued that these examples are part of larger genres and subgenres of vids.147 Proponents
also cited Professor Wesch’s Digital Ethnography project which, as noted above, approximatedthat between 2,000 and 6,000 vids that include clips drawn from DVDs are uploaded to YouTube
each day. These numbers were used to demonstrate the scope of the public’s involvement in thisnew creative format. Rather than textually or verbally explaining the comment or criticism, theproponents stated that vidders often use audiovisual material to show, demonstrate, or illustrate
their point, a “visual essay that stages an argument,” often through the lens of music.148 Particular
music or lyrics will sometimes be chosen as a vehicle to comment upon or criticize portions of
motion pictures.149 For these reasons, the proponents argued that the first factor tends to weigh infavor of fair use due to the noncommercial and transformative nature of vids.
Proponents stated that even if the second fair use factor tips in favor of copyright owners
because the works used are typically fictional works, “courts have recognized that this factor is
likely to be of little importance in fair use cases involving the creation of transformative, original
works.”150
Proponents argued that the third factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion usedin relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, also supports noncommercial video creators
because these uses “will generally comprise only a small fraction of the works from which they
are taken.”151 Use of a small portion of the motion picture in order to fulfill a transformative
145

C11A (EFF) at 19.

146

Id.

147

Id. at 15-16.

148

Id. at 16, quoting Francesca Coppa.

149
While the use of musical works and sound recordings may also be implicated in an infringement
action, no circumvention issues appear to pertain to these uses since such works are generally available inunprotected formats.
150

C11A (EFF) at 19, citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994) and Blanch v.
Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 253 (2d Cir. 2006).
151

C11A (EFF) at 19.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 41

purpose, they argue, will generally lead to the conclusion that the third factor favors fair use.
Proponents also asserted that the fourth fair use factor supports a claim of fair use. They
stated that because the use is noncommercial and transformative, the videos “will almost never be
a substitute for the original works. In fact, in many cases, a remix video will be hardly
comprehensible to someone who has not already seen the original video ‘texts’ from which theclips are drawn.”152 Moreover, proponents argued that to the extent these works criticize theoriginal work, it is unlikely that a copyright owner would be willing to authorize the use.
Opponents of the proposed class stated that generalizing about the underlying use as fair“would encourage widespread circumvention and subsequent unauthorized copying and creationof derivative works, while leaving it to the courts to sift through the legal rubble that results.”153
They also stated that the limitation for “noncommercial” uses would do little to curb the harmful
impact, because these videos are often distributed by online services that earn significant income
from the creations of vidders.154 The Joint Creators also contended that the “[i]ndustry confidence
in the average consumer’s recognition that digital locks are not meant to be picked has led to therapid spread of content available in many digital forms” and that designating the class would
confuse the public and create a slippery slope to exemptions for particular uses, rather thanclasses of works.155
Finally, the Joint Creators argued that the proponents had not demonstrated that access tomotion pictures for noninfringing purposes requires circumvention of access controls. They
argued that alternatives are available and that “to the extent that the final product may be, in aparticular case, noninfringing, ‘fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access tocopyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user’s preferred techniques, or in the format of
the original.’”156

152

Id.

153

R 46 (Joint Creators) at 66.

154

Id.

155

Id. at 66-67.

156

Id. at 67, citing Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 459 (2d. Cir. 2001).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

4.

June 11, 2010

Page 42NTIA Comments

NTIA expressed support for an expansion of the existing class of audiovisual works toinclude all college and university level instructors and students. It stated that “proponents
persuasively demonstrate that while film and media studies professors have an obvious need touse clips in their instruction, other subject matter instructors at the university level also have aneed to use clips to supplement effective instruction.”157 NTIA also found that alternatives tocircumvention, such as videotaping clips using a video camera, online movie services, and clip
services, were either too expensive or were not viable market options.158 Moreover, NTIA was
not persuaded by the opponents’ argument that an expansion of the class would negate theusefulness of access control mechanisms on DVDs or encourage abuse of the exemption. NTIA
noted that the opponents of the proposed class have not identified any harm that has resulted fromthe designation of the current class.
NTIA did not believe that proponents of designation of a class that would include teachersand students in the K-12 setting provided sufficient evidence of harm or need in the record of thisproceeding. Specifically, it stated, “Without such proof, the Register should not consider
recommending expansion of this exemption beyond the college or university level.”159
NTIA recommended limiting the class to address the use of DVDs included in the
educational library or departments of the academic institutions, noting that such a limitation
would limit misuse of the exemption.160
NTIA also supported the proposal to designate a class of works for the benefit of
documentary filmmakers. While it agreed with opponents of the proposed class that documentary
filmmakers are more likely to be sophisticated enough to license the clips used to ensure theircompliance with the law, it was also persuaded that license requests may be denied to
documentary filmmakers, in certain cases, such as when a clip is to be used to criticize theoriginal film. NTIA was concerned that in those cases, the filmmakers may be unnecessarily
foreclosed from a noninfringing use in the proposed class is not designated.
157

NTIA Letter at 4.

158

Id. at 5.

159

Id. at 4.

160

Id. at 6.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 43

NTIA expressed general support for the request to designate a class that would permit
extraction of film clips for use in noncommercial videos, noting that since the last DMCA
rulemaking, the world of online video has grown significantly, creating new norms andexpectations that did not exist in 2006. NTIA expressed its view that the proposed class would
offer an important opportunity for education. social comment and criticism, and further
innovation. In NTIA’s view, the DMCA should not stifle innovation in this area.
However, NTIA was not convinced that all potential uses under this proposal are clearlynoninfringing uses. While some remix videos contain criticism and comment, are noncommercial,
and use limited clips, thousands of video remixes are posted on a daily basis and not all of them
are noninfringing. NTIA suggested a narrowing of the language of the proposed class to ensurethat all uses that benefit from the designation of the class are noninfringing. NTIA suggested thatsuch language should require that the clips from the audiovisual work must be for remix videos
that are used for social comment or criticism, or that are used in transformative-type works
according to established fair use principles.
5.

New Classes of Works–Reasoning and Rationales

Issues surrounding CSS-protected DVDs have been a feature of the 1201 rulemakings
since 2000. Most frequently, concerns have been expressed about: (1) access to DVDs on
unsupported platforms; (2) accessing lawfully acquired region-coded DVDs that were purchasedin other regions; and (3) avoiding access to unwanted material on DVDs, such as the unskippablepromotional trailers sometimes contained on DVDs. In this rulemaking proceeding, offshoots ofsome of these arguments can be found.161
In contrast to the prior access-related proposals, a striking and unifying feature in the
proposals for the educational exemptions of CSS-encrypted DVDs, the documentary filmmakers’
proposal, and the proposal for noncommercial, transformative uses of CSS-protected DVDs, isthat all of these proponents already have access to the works on an ongoing basis.162 All of the161

See, e.g., Carney/Rizik proposed classes, infra at p. 215

162This analysis is limited to CSS even though some proponents also mentioned motion pictures in Bluray format as well. The record in this rulemaking did not demonstrate that any works available in Blu-ray format
were not also available in CSS-protected DVDs. Moreover, there was no showing that the quality of a motion picture
contained on a Blu-ray disc was needed in order to make a noninfringing use. The record in relation to the AACS
protection contained on Blu-ray discs was essentially nonexistent. Accordingly, the Register finds no basis on which
to separately assess an exemption related to Blu-ray discs within the present rulemaking.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 44

proponents own, rent, or borrow lawful copies of CSS-protected DVDs. All of the proponents
own, possess, or have access to DVD CCA-licensed DVD players that lawfully decrypt theseworks. All of the proponents obtain lawful access to these works every time they seek access to
the works. All of the proponents wish to circumvent access controls not in order to access theworks, but rather to display and/or make copies of portions of a work contained on a CSSprotected DVD. Film professors seek to make copies of portions of motion pictures on DVDs to
put together in compilations for efficient use in class. Other educators seek to reproduce clips of
motion pictures163 for illustration, demonstration, and examples in class. Documentary filmmakers
seek to reproduce portions of motion pictures for use as illustration, demonstration, commentary,or criticism in the creation of new works. Noncommercial creators seek to use portions of motion
pictures to create noninfringing works involving criticism and/or comment that they assert aretransformative.
The striking feature about all of these proposals related to CSS-protected DVDs is that the
proponents all seek to use works for which they have lawful access. They all seek to make usesthat implicate Section 106 rights, but in ways that are alleged to be noninfringing. They also allseek to use only portions of works. The question fairly raised is: why would their ability to makesuch noninfringing uses be adversely affected by a technological measure that controls access?
The answer to that question lies in the nature of CSS and the definitions in the statute.
a.

The use of an access control to control use of a work

CSS is a form of encryption. It is an encryption-based system that employs an algorithm
to encrypt the contents of a DVD and combines multiple layers of encryption with anauthentication process to protect a DVD’s (typically copyrighted) video content fromunauthorized access or unauthorized consumer copying.164 Encryption is one of the repeatedly
cited forms of technological measures that protect access to works that are mentioned in thelegislative history of the DMCA.165 Encryption, such as CSS, fits the statutory definition of atechnological measure that effectively controls access to a work because, in the ordinary course of
its operation, the encryption requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment,163

As noted elsewhere, for purposes of copyright law, the term “motion pictures” includes not only
movies but also works such as television shows and “bonus” material on DVDs.
164

Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass'n, 641 F. Supp.2d 913, 919 (N.D. Cal. 2009)(“Realnetworks”).
165

See, e.g., Commerce Report at 37.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 45

with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.166 CSS is a technologicalmeasure that controls access to a work.167
But that encrypted work is automatically decrypted whenever a person in possession of a
DVD places the DVD in an authorized DVD player. What is the point of an access control whenaccess is granted to everyone in possession of the DVD? 168 The answer is that CSS as an access
control is a means to a further end. Applying CSS, a technological protection measure that
controls access to a work, ensures that decryption must be accomplished in a particular mannerauthorized by the copyright owner, that is, access is provided only on use-limited DVD players.
To obtain authorized decryption, copyright owners require device manufacturers to agree to
additional contractual terms, specifically, terms that inhibit the reproduction of the content on
DVDs. Decryption keys are licensed to device manufacturers that produce DVD players.169 All
authorized DVD players, whether a stand-alone DVD player or a DVD drive in a computer,obtain the keys to decrypt CSS from the DVD CCA. As a condition of obtaining the decryption
keys, the device manufacturer agrees to certain conditions on the capabilities of the DVD player,
including an agreement that the device will not contain a digital output that will allow digital
reproduction of the decrypted content.170 By design, the CSS encryption system serves as a link ina chain of legal and technological requirements that ultimately inhibit the possessor of a CSSprotected DVD from copying the work or works embodied in it. Practically speaking, CSS does
not so much limit access to the works contained on the DVD, but rather limits the means ofobtaining access, or the manner in which access is granted. To the extent that access is limited, it
is limited only in relation to the type of device that can provide access. The only type of device
that can provide authorized access is a device authorized through license by the DVD CCA,
which contractually obligates device manufacturers to limit the reproduction capabilities of thedevice.
This decryption process is generally unseen by the person playing or accessing a DVD,
166

17 U.S.C. §1201(a)(3)(B).

167

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp.2d 294, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d, Universal
City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 436-37 (2d Cir. 2001). Accord, RealNetworks, 641 F. Supp. 2d at 922.
168

One example of an access control on DVDs that does actually prevent access is region coding, which
precludes DVDs from different geographical regions from playing on a single DVD player. See 2003
Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 120-24.
169

RealNetworks, 641 F. Supp.2d at 919.

170

Id. at 950.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 46

because the keys to decrypt the encryption are not directly distributed to the end-user. The
possessor of a DVD must use a licensed device,171 with limited copying capabilities, in order toaccess the work. CSS, although a technological measure that controls access to a work, essentiallyprevents digital reproduction of the motion pictures on DVDs.172 Thus, CSS is an access control
that also (and, arguably, primarily) serves to prevent copying.173
In 2000, the Register recognized that CSS may interfere with use in a manner that was notcontemplated by Congress, stating:
Proponents of an exemption for motion pictures on DVDs raised four generalarguments. First, they asserted that CSS represents a merger of access and use
controls, such that one of those two control functions of the technology cannot be
circumvented without also circumventing the other. . . Since Congress prohibited
only the conduct of circumventing access measures and declined to enact a
comparable prohibition against circumvention of measures that protect the rightsof the copyright owner under § 1201(b), they argued that a merger of controls
exceeds the scope of the congressional grant. In this view, the merger of accessand use controls would effectively bootstrap the legal prohibition against
circumvention of access controls to include copy controls and thereby prevents auser from making otherwise noninfringing uses of lawfully acquired copies, suchas excerpting parts of the material on a DVD for a film class, which might be a fair171

If using an unlicensed device, the user’s access would not be “with the authority of the copyrightowner” and thus would constitute circumvention of the Section 1201(a)(1) prohibition.
172

Analog reproduction may be impeded by Macrovision’s automatic gain control and color stripe copy
control technology that is used on many commercially released DVDs.
173

Id. at 28. See also, Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp.2d at 322. (“Perhaps moresignificantly, it prevents exact copying of either the video or the audio portion of all or any part of the film.”) While
it is true that limiting the decryption of CSS through a licensing system has the effect of preventing copying, no court
has concluded that CSS, as a technological protection measure unrelated to licensing concerns, is in fact atechnological protection measure that “effectively protects the right of a copyright owner.” See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b).
The encryption itself does not “prevent[], restrict[], or otherwise limit[] the exercise of a copyright owner under thistitle.” It is the licensing arrangement with device manufacturers that inhibits digital reproduction. This contractual
restriction is not part of CSS itself and does not constitute a technological protection measure that protects the rightsof the copyright owner. Two recently introduced technological measures, ARccOS and RipGuard, appear to qualify
as such measures,. ARccOS is a copy-protection system developed and marketed by Sony DADC and RipGuard is acopy-protection system developed by Macrovision, Inc. Both measures attempt to impede the functionality of DVD
copying programs by inserting corrupted or "bad" sectors on DVDs: intentional obstacles placed subversively in
DVD data that cause “read” errors when the sectors are read by a DVD drive so as to severely impede copying of theDVD. See RealNetworks, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d at 936-940. In contrast to these copy controls, CSS itself appears tobe solely a technological protection measure that protects access which, through licensing arrangements with device
manufacturers, has the effect of restricting unauthorized copying by the users of DVD players. It bears noting that
not all unauthorized copying is infringing, ergo, authorization is not necessary for a noninfringing use of a
copyrighted work.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 47

use. While this is a significant concern, there are a number of considerations to bebalanced. From the comments and testimony presented, it is clear that, at present,
most works available in DVD format are also available in analog format (VHStape) as well. . .When distributed in analog formats—formats in which distribution
is likely to continue for the foreseeable future— these works are not protected byany technological measures controlling access. . . Therefore, any harm caused by
the existence of access control measures used in DVDs can be avoided byobtaining a copy of the work in analog format. See House Manager’s Report, at 7(‘‘in assessing the impact of the prohibition on the ability to make noninfringing
uses, the Secretary should take into consideration the availability of works in theparticular class in other formats that are not subject to technologicalprotections.’’). Thus far, no proponents of this argument for an exemption havecome forward with evidence of any substantial or concrete harm. Aside from broadconcerns, there have been very few specific problems alleged. The allegations ofharm raised were generally hypothetical in nature, involved relatively insignificant
uses, or involved circumstances in which the noninfringing nature of the desired
use was questionable (e.g., backup copies of the DVD) or unclear. . . This failure
to demonstrate actual harm in the years since the implementation of the CSS
measures tends to undermine the fears of proponents of an exemption. . . .
The merger of technological measures that protect access and copying does notappear to have been anticipated by Congress. Congress did create a distinction
between the conduct of circumvention of access controls and the conduct of
circumvention of use controls by prohibiting the former while permitting the latter,but neither the language of section 1201 nor the legislative history addresses thepossibility of access controls that also restrict use. It is unclear how a court might
address this issue. It would be helpful if Congress were to clarify its intent, since
the implementation of merged technological measures arguably would undermine
Congress’s decision to offer disparate treatment for access controls and use
controls in section 1201. At present, on the current record, it would be imprudent
to venture too far on this issue in the absence of congressional guidance. The issueof merged access and use measures may become a significant problem. The
Copyright Office intends to monitor this issue during the next three years andhopes to have the benefit of a clearer record and guidance from Congress at thetime of the next rulemaking proceeding.174
The passage of time has brought about a number of changes that affect the equation thatwas before the Register in 2000. While there has been no guidance from Congress on the issue,
the factual record is significantly different and much more developed in 2009 than the record
before the Register in 2000. The proponents of the classes of works involving motion pictures on
174

See 2000 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,568 (footnotes andcitations to the record omitted).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 48

CSS-protected DVDs have demonstrated that certain noninfringing uses are being affected by theprohibition, and that alternative formats are no longer available, in sharp contrast with the recordin 2000.
In 2006, the film and media studies professors demonstrated that high-quality resolution
and additional attributes of motion pictures on DVDs were reasonably necessary for thenoninfringing pedagogical purpose of the use. The 2009 record is largely congruent with theevidentiary record in 2006 in regard to noninfringing uses that film and media studies professors
desire to make. However, in the current rulemaking, a broader range of educators have made apersuasive case that the use of portions of CSS-protected DVDs would generally constitute a
noninfringing use in the classroom. Similarly, educational use is not limited to teachers, but also
often involves student uses of works.
However, the record in relation to the use of motion pictures contained on CSS-protected
DVDs is not limited to educational use. Documentary filmmakers have made a compelling casefor the need to use portions of the digital versions of motion pictures that exist on CSS-protected
DVDs for purposes of criticism and comment within a documentary.
The creators of noncommercial, transformative works have also presented evidence which
reasonably demonstrates that some number of works created for purposes of criticism or comment
benefit from and, for certain purposes, depend upon the use of portions of motion picturescontained on CSS-protected DVDs.
Given the fact that all of these proposals seek to circumvent CSS-protected DVDs in orderto accomplish an allegedly noninfringing use, the Register finds it appropriate to analyze these
proposals in an aggregated analysis. As stated previously, there is no dispute that CSS qualifies asa technological protection measure that “effectively protects access” to the motion pictures on
CSS-protected DVDs. This threshold determination leads to the next level of discussion, that is,whether each of these proposals involves underlying noninfringing uses.
If the proposed purpose of the circumvention is demonstrated to be a noninfringing use,
the next critical question will be whether the prohibition against circumventing the technologicalprotection measure is causing an adverse effect on such noninfringing uses. In essence, this is theinquiry mandated by the first statutory factor, the availability for use of copyrighted works.175 In
175

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C)(i).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 49

this assessment, the Register will need to examine whether alternative formats of the works areavailable for use and/or whether alternative means of accomplishing the noninfringing uses areavailable to users without circumventing CSS. If the result of that analysis reveals that, up to thatpoint, the case for designating a class of works has been made, the Register will examine theother statutory factors contained in Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(ii)-(v), including the likely effect of
circumvention to the market for or value of copyrighted works, to assess the propriety and scopeof the class or classes to be designatedb.

The underlying noninfringing use

All of the proponents and supporters of the classes covering CSS-protected DVDs foreducational, documentary and noncommercial videos have demonstrated that some of theunderlying uses may be fair uses. The educational users, the documentary filmmakers and thenoncommercial, transformative users all fit squarely within the illustrative uses of criticism,comment, or teaching, set forth in the preamble of Section 107.
Under the first fair use factor, the proposed uses of portions of motion pictures are
generally transformative in nature—they use the work for a different purpose than theentertainment purpose of the original work, such as criticism, comment, or as an illustration forteaching purposes.176 In the academic and the noncommercial transformative use context, thecharacter of the use is also noncommercial. In the case of documentary films, although the use
may frequently be commercial in nature, the purpose of criticism or comment about the original
works will generally be transformative, and thus the commercial purpose is less significant whenassessing a transformative use.177
The Register does not conclude that all, or even most, of the examples offered byproponents of these classes – and especially of the class consisting of “noncommercial videos” –are transformative in the sense that is relevant to an analysis of the first fair use factor. However,
it is fair to conclude that more than a trivial portion of those examples do qualify as
176

Educators’ use of the portions of motion pictures do not transform the works themselves, but extract
portions for the transformative purpose of comment, criticism and analysis of those portions in the classroom setting.
In the preamble of Section 107, the illustration of teaching is followed by the parenthetical clause “(including
multiple copies for classroom use). . . .” This reference suggests that a mere reproduction may be transformative if
the context of the use is for a new and different purpose. Moreover, to the extent that educators seek to create acompilation of clips, they are creating that compilation for a different purpose from the original works.
177

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. at 584-585.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 50transformative.
Despite the frequently commercial nature of the use with respect to documentary
filmmakers, the activities of documentary filmmakers may be transformative in nature andpurpose.178 Documentary filmmakers and noncommercial vidders may use works in order tocriticize or comment upon the copyrighted work being used. When a motion picture is used for
purposes of criticism and comment, such a use is a form of quotation, long recognized asparadigmatic productive use with respect to textual works, which is at the core of fair use’sfunction as a free-speech safeguard.179 For example, clips from one or more copyrighted works
may be used to make a point about some perceived theme or undercurrent in works, such as
violence against women or racism.180 In other situations, portions of works may be used andremixed in order to make political statements about candidates181 or copyright law itself.182
Under the second fair use factor, the nature of the copyrighted motion picture is generally
creative in nature and thus within the core of copyright’s protective purposes.183 On the other
178

C11B (Kartemquin) at 2-3, citing examples of motion picture clips used to illustrate a documentary
filmmaker’s point, (e.g., the 2000 film It Conquered the World! A Story of American International Pictures, which
addressed the history and development of the horror film genre, made fair use of clips from horror films to show,inter alia, the political context of “alien visitation films.”). See Hofheinz v. Discovery Communs., Inc., 2001 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 14752 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2001)(citations omitted). In addition to summary judgment due to the tollingof the limitations period, the Hofheinz court found that the use of the alien films was a fair use. (“Setting aside thefact that Hofheinz has produced no evidence as to the existence of such a market, apart from the nine licenses that
she has entered into in the last six years, or any evidence whatsoever that the two clips had an adverse impact on themarket for clips of Invasion of the Saucermen, to find that the use of short clips presumptively constitutes
infringement would eviscerate the fair use defense in this area ‘since every copyright infringer seeking the protectionof the fair use doctrine could have potentially sought a license from the owner of the alleged mark.’”).
179

See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 220 (2003) (“[T]he ‘fair use’ defense allows the public to use not
only facts and ideas contained in a copyrighted work, but also expression itself in certain circumstances.”)
180
Wormen’s Work, available at: http://www.blip.tv/file/2299910/ (critical observation of female
characters in numerous episodes of the television series, Supernatural); Racism in Disney, available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibK0SCpIkk (Last visited 4/30/10.) (criticizing the characterization of race andethnicity in numerous Disney films).
181

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo (Last visited 4/30/10.) (remix of famous 1984
Apple Superbowl advertisement).
182

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo (Last visited 4/30/10.) (copyright law explained
through the remixing of Disney movies).
183

Given that this analysis is generalized, and does not analyze a specific use, the assessment of the actual
nature of the copyrighted work will vary from case to case. However, the record in this rulemaking generally
revealed examples of motion pictures on the creative side of the spectrum, rather than factual in nature.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 51

hand, the work is also published if it is available on DVD.184 The ambiguity created by the weightof these intra-factor inquiries must also be considered in relation to the transformative purpose of
the uses. The Supreme Court has stated that in relation to certain transformative uses, the second
factor is of limited assistance in evaluating whether the use is a fair use.185 Literary quotation
often includes references to novels to make a point (fair use quotation is not limited to quotationsof non-fiction works), and there appears to be no reason why short clips from creative motion
pictures should not be able to serve a similar purpose when the use of the motion picture istransformative.
Under the third factor, an essential component of all of the proposals for use is that only ashort portion of the work is used.186 Quantitatively, the evidence in the record suggests that mostof the uses by educators, students, documentary filmmakers, and noncommercial, transformative
users involve a relatively small portion of the copyrighted work. For example, evidence
demonstrated at the hearings generally involved the use of portions of motion pictures that werein some cases less than 1 minute and never more than 3-5 minutes in length. In relation to atypical movie of perhaps 120 minutes, that is a quantitatively small amount that is comparable toa quotation of a short passage from a book, particularly when used for a new and different
purpose from the original.187 Qualitatively, although the portion used may be an important scene
or scenes from one or more movies, the transformative nature of the use in relation to a publishedwork tends to avoid a situation where the portion used, either quantitatively or qualitatively,
would adversely affect or supersede the potential market for or value of the underlying works. As
the Supreme Court has stated, in certain situations, using the heart of the work may be the optimal
way of avoiding taking too much quantitatively, particularly where it is necessary to “conjure up”

184

The scope of fair use generally is narrower with respect to unpublished works than to published works.
Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 564 (1985).
185

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. at 579.

186

The Register has taken this factor, as well as the evidence in the record, into account in recommending
an exemption that permits circumvention only for the purpose of using short portions of a work. See infra.
187

While in some cases, multiple clips from the same motion picture were used, or larger percentages ofinterviews contained on the DVD were used, the question of whether the amount used was reasonable in relation to
the purpose is a fundamental fair use question that should be addressed under the rubric of fair use analysis, notprecluded per se as a result of the prohibition on circumvention. There were undoubtedly some examples introduced
into record that used an amount of the work that may well disqualify them from relying on the fair use defense. See,e.g., Luminosity’s Vogue/300 (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNRjzUB7Afo (Last visited 4/30/10.)
showing an extensive montage of scenes from the movie 300 mixed with Madonna’s sound recording, Vogue).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 52

the work used.188 Moreover, unlike the situation in which a significant qualitative use of an
unpublished work adversely affected the first publication of the work, all of the works at issue inthese proposals have been published.189
Under the fourth factor, when the use of the work is transformative, there is likely to be nointerference with the primary or reasonable derivative markets for the underlying work.
Opponents of the proposed classes did not identify any use by educators, documentary
filmmakers, or noncommercial vidders that has harmed the market for, or value of, any
copyrighted motion picture. Any diminution in value resulting from the use for purposes ofcriticism or commentary would also not be cognizable harm under the Copyright Act.190 The useof small portions of motion pictures for criticism or commentary is not likely to be a market thatthe copyright owner would reasonably be expected to exploit. Indeed, even if such a potential
market were reasonably anticipated, it would not eliminate the need to permit an unauthorized usethat was fair. Moreover, while copyright owners have begun to experiment with models forproviding clips to educators, there was no evidence in the record that a viable or efficientmechanism for permissions or licensing exists or is likely to exist in the ensuing three-year
period.191 Thus, the fourth factor tends to weigh heavily in favor of fair use for the vast majority of
truly transformative uses.
On balance, the fair use analysis tends to demonstrate that many of the uses sought by the
proponents may be considered fair uses. Importantly, the Register is not making any judgment as
to whether any particular example offered by proponents actually is a fair use. Some uses in the
educational, documentary, and noncommercial, transformative context will undoubtedly be
infringing. The point is that a cognizable basis has been established for concluding that some(probably many) uses in each of the proposed classes are likely to qualify as noninfringing uses
under established judicial precedents.

188

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. at 588-589 (“But if quotation of the opening riff and the firstline may be said to go to the ‘heart’ of the original, the heart is also what most readily conjures up the song forparody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. Copying does not become excessive in relation to parodic
purpose merely because the portion taken was the original's heart. If 2 Live Crew had copied a significantly lessmemorable part of the original, it is difficult to see how its parodic character would have come through.”)
189

Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. at 564-565.

190

Id. at 591-592.

191

The creation of such a mechanism would be a relevant consideration in any future Section 1201
rulemaking proceeding.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 53

However, the fact that the proponents have identified a number of noninfringing uses that
could be accomplished by means of circumvention does not necessarily mean that the prohibition
on circumvention is having an adverse effect on noninfringing uses. Other means ofaccomplishing the noninfringing uses without circumventing access controls might be available.
That question is addressed below in the discussion of Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(i).
c.

The meaning of a “portion” of a work

The proponents of classes of works related to DVDs relied only on activities involving theuse of portions of DVDs192 “for the purpose of extracting clips for inclusion in noncommercial
videos that do not infringe copyright,”193 or “for the purpose of making compilations of portionsof those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.”194 The
Copyright Office sought clarification for the contours of a “portion” in questions after the
hearing, inquiring whether specific quantitative limitations would be advisable.195 Proponents andopponents both generally opposed quantifying a “portion” in relation to a maximum length orpercentage. Although delineation of what amount or percentage of a work would, at its outer
limits, constitute a “portion” was generally said to be impossible, all of the specific evidence
introduced into the record to illustrate vids or documentaries demonstrate that, generally, a
relatively small percentage (quantitatively) of the motion picture is needed for the creation of avid.196 The Register agrees that the use of some portion of a motion picture for a transformative
192

The class proposed by documentary filmmakers did not mention a portion or clip from a work.
However, documentary filmmakers repeatedly made it clear in their testimony that they sought to circumvent solely
to obtain clips from DVDs. See, e.g., T Quinn, 5/7/09, at 21 (“in our work and in particularly in some otherdocumentaries work which is also very professional and I highly respect, there are a lot of clips used from a lot ofdifferent things. They're very short.”)193

C11A (EFF) at 1.

194

C4E & C4F (Decherney) at 1.

195

See Copyright Office Questions to Panelists on DVD-related Hearing Panels,
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/9_21_responses/questions-panelist.pdf (Last visited 4/30/10.) (“ Anumber of the proposals for exemptions for DVDs included, within the descriptions of their proposed classes, acondition that the use be for the purpose of compiling portions of motion pictures....From your unique perspectives,is there a limitation, either in terms of duration or percentage (or both), which could be incorporated into thedefinition of an exempted class of works?”).
196

In responses to questions, the Organization of Transformative Works and EFF argued that since“voice-over commentaries” combined with films is now possible, it would not be prudent to quantify the percentage
of a work that could be used. See Post-Hearing Response of OTW and EFF to August 21st Supplemental Questions
to Panelists on DVD-Related Hearing Panels at 3-4. While such an activity may be possible, no particular example
of a use of more than a portion of a work was introduced, and it is questionable whether the use of more than aRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 54

purpose may qualify as a fair use.
The opposition to any form of delineation of a portion in regard to time-length orpercentage of the overall work was, broadly speaking, two-fold. First, proponents argued that a
precise limit would raise a host of questions, such as, what would the percentage specifically
apply to: the contents of a DVD or a component work on the DVD? Second, both proponents andopponents stated that since the amount of the use was only one factor in the fair use analysis,delineating a particular amount in an exemption to the prohibition on circumvention might
mislead the public. On one hand, opponents argued that the public might interpret the exemption
to indicate that any use of such a “portion” is necessarily noninfringing. On the other hand,
proponents argued that some uses in excess of the articulation of a “portion” might be a fair use
under the totality of the fair use analysis, but would be precluded by the exemption. While it was
not the Copyright Office’s intention to suggest that any temporal limitation set forth in thedefinition of the class should be interpreted as drawing the line between a fair use and an unfair
use, the Register recognizes that any attempt to determine precisely how large an excerpted
portion could be without violating the prohibition on circumvention would be problematic. An
amount that might be reasonable in one context might be excessive in another. Moreover, aregulation defining how large an excerpted portion of a work could be for purposes of the
exemption from the prohibition on circumvention could well mislead the public into a false belief
that the regulation was, for all practical purposes, defining the quantitative limits of fair use.
Nevertheless, the Register concludes that some characterization of the quantitative amountof the use for purposes of criticism or comment is appropriate. No commenter or witness has
persuasively argued that designation of a class of works is warranted in order to permit the use ofextensive excerpts of motion pictures. Virtually all of the evidence of noninfringing uses of
motion pictures for criticism or comment has involved short portions of motion pictures in orderto make a pedagogical point or to use a work for criticism or comment in a documentary film or
noncommercial vid. There was concern expressed that qualification of a “portion” in some way
might raise questions about the cumulative amount of a work used in a transformative work, or
the cumulative amount used within a semester of classes. While these concerns have some merit,the Register finds that the benefit of some qualification of the term “portion”outweighs the costs.
The inclusion of the phrase “short portions of the works” in the description of the class will makeit clearer that a case that extensive use of a motion picture is a noninfringing use has not been
portion of a work in a vid would support a claim of fair use. Thus, the record demonstrates only that the use of
portions of works in a vid may be noninfringing uses that are adversely affected by the prohibition.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 55

established in the record, and that such uses disqualify a user from the benefit of the designationof this class of works. Likewise, if a film class focused on a particular film over the course of asemester, the fact that most (or all) of the work was cumulatively used during the semester would
not prevent the application of the exemption to short portions incorporated into a number ofcompilations of clips for use in individual classes.
The use of the phrase “short portions of the works” highlights the evidentiary record that
forms the basis of this recommendation. The proponents’ justification for the need for designatinga class of works has not established that relief is needed to permit circumvention for the purposeof making more than a short portion of a work. This is not to suggest that the use of a long portion
cannot be a noninfringing use in a particular circumstance. However, noninfringing uses may be
accomplished in various ways without circumvention, as the record in this rulemaking
demonstrates. The harm to copyright owners’ interests that could result from a generalized
perception that any amount, or large portions, of a motion picture can be reproduced throughcircumvention warrants a balancing of the interests in this case. Those interests can best bebalanced by limiting the class to permit the use of short portions of motion pictures.
d.

Application of statutory factors

The proponents have demonstrated that there are an appreciable number of noninfringing
uses that they contend are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the prohibition on
circumvention, because CSS prevents certain forms of reproduction of motion pictures containedon CSS-protected DVDs. Having established that CSS is a technological protection measure that
effectively controls access to the work, and that there are noninfringing uses that are adversely
affected by the prohibition on circumvention, the proponents have met their threshold burdens in
support of designating a class of works.
These threshold inquiries do not, however, end the analysis of whether designation of aclass of works is warranted. Congress established a series of factors in Section 1201(a)(1)(C) to
be considered in the rulemaking proceeding in order to assess whether relief from the prohibition
on circumvention of access controls is appropriate.
Factor One
The first factor requires the Librarian to consider “the availability for use of copyrighted

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 56

works.”197 In considering the availability for use of copyrighted works, Congress indicated thatthe prohibition does not only have the ability to limit uses, but also to foster new use-facilitating
business models that offer the public access to works in a variety of new ways. The HouseManager’s Report stated:
In assessing the impact of the implementation of technological measures, and of
the law against their circumvention, the rulemaking proceedings should consider
the positive as well as the adverse effects of these technologies on the availabilityof copyrighted materials. The technological measures -- such as encryption,scrambling and electronic envelopes -- that this bill protects can be deployed, notonly to prevent piracy and other economically harmful unauthorized uses of
copyrighted materials, but also to support new ways of disseminating copyrighted
materials to users, and to safeguard the availability of legitimate uses of thosematerials by individuals. These technological measures may make more works
more widely available, and the process of obtaining permissions easier. . . .
Similarly, in assessing the impact of the prohibition on the ability to makenoninfringing uses, the Secretary should take into consideration the availability ofworks in the particular class in other formats that are not subject to technologicalprotections. 198
This statement in the legislative history has application to both the first and the fourth
statutory factors. In relation to the first factor, the Register has interpreted the relevant inquiry toinclude, (1) whether the availability of the work in protected format enhances and/or inhibits
public use of particular works, (2) whether the work protected is also available in other formats(and whether those formats are protected by access controls), and (3) if alternative formats areavailable, whether such formats are sufficient to accommodate noninfringing uses.199
i.

Does the protection of the work enhance and/or inhibit theavailability of the work for use?

In past rulemakings, the MPAA has offered evidence that CSS protection was a critical

197

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C)(i).

198

House Manager’s Report at 6-7.

199

2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 19-22.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 57

factor in the decision to release motion pictures in digital format.200 It has also been argued in thepast that without the provisions in Section 1201, the motion picture industry would have been,
and would prospectively be, reluctant to distribute motion pictures in DVD format if protected
DVDs were to constitute a class exempted from the prohibition against circumvention. This
assertion was credited in past rulemaking proceedings and is not questioned retrospectively in thisproceeding. But to the extent that this proposition was true in the past, it is questionable whether
this continuing assertion is supportable in the realities of the current marketplace. CSS-protected
DVDs are now the dominant form of distribution for motion pictures to the public.201 CSSprotected DVDs have continued to be the dominant format even though circumvention tools havelong been widely available online.202 At this point in time, the suggestion that an exemption forcertain noninfringing uses will cause the end of the digital distribution of motion pictures is
without foundation. It is clear that a transition is currently taking place to new forms of digital
distribution, such as Blu-ray discs protected by the AACS system, and it is possible that andesignating a class based on motion pictures on CSS-protected DVDs will lead to an increased
desire to foster that transition. However, the availability of motion pictures generally is unlikely
to be diminished by designating such a class of works. Thus, while CSS-protected DVDs mayvery well have fostered the digital distribution of motion pictures to the public, there is no
credible support for the proposition that the digital distribution of motion pictures continues todepend on the integrity of the general “principle” that the circumvention of CSS is always
unlawful. While it may well be true that an class that was not carefully tailored (such as “motion
pictures on CSS-protected DVDs”) would risk confusion, an appropriately tailored class should
not compromise the integrity of the prohibition for circumvention with respect to non-covered
uses, as will be examined further below.
ii.

Is the protected work available in other formats?

There is also evidence that the availability of the works for use has been diminished inrelation to particular uses as a result of CSS-protected DVDs displacing alternative formats for
200

See, e.g., 2000 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,569. (“ The releaseof audiovisual works on DVDs was predicated on the ability to limit piracy through the use of technological access
control measures).
201

See, e.g., “Blu-ray market share on the decline?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10050918-1.html (Last visited 5/5/10.); “Blu-ray Disc Statistics - Blu-ray
Software Market Share Vs. DVD and HD DVD,” http://www.blu-raystats.com/MarketShare/index.php. (Last visited
4/30/10.)202

See, e.g., Copyright Office Hearing Transcript, April 3, 2006, at 75-80.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 58

motion pictures. In past rulemaking proceedings, the availability of motion pictures in
unprotected formats was a significant consideration. In the 2000 rulemaking, the record
demonstrated that most motion pictures on CSS-protected DVDs were also available on VHS
tape.203 Although some additional or “bonus” material on the DVDs was not available inunprotected formats, the public benefitted from the availability of the added features contained on
DVDs that were not otherwise available, and the proponents did not sufficiently demonstrate thatthe need for the protected material outweighed the benefit of the prohibition in encouraging thedigital dissemination of motion pictures together with those added features.204
The current record reveals a very different picture with respect to the existence ofalternative formats from what existed in 2000. CSS-protected DVDs are now the dominant formof distribution for motion pictures. VHS tapes of motion pictures are no longer beingcommercially distributed. Some content may be available from other sources, such as Hulu andother authorized websites, but that content is not a viable alternative to the multitude of motion
pictures available on DVD. The offerings on Hulu and other authorized sources are very limited
relative to the works available in DVD format. CSS-protected DVDs are the primary, and oftensole, source of the motion pictures for the public in general, and for the proponents of theseclasses of works in particular.
(iii)

Are Alternative Means of Accomplishing theNoninfringing Use Available to Users?

Camcording the Screen Output. Rather than focus on alternative unprotected formats ofmotion pictures that are available to the public,205 the MPAA focused on an alternative means ofobtaining the content of CSS-protected DVDs that does not involve circumvention. Specifically,
the MPAA demonstrated at the May 6 hearing how the screen output of a CSS-protected DVD
may be camcorded while the DVD is being performed on a television screen.206 However, theproponents of the class for educational uses argued that better-quality copies are needed because:
203

2000 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 65 FR at 64,568.

204

Id.

205
It should also be noted that motion pictures on Hulu are not “unprotected.” Rather, access is available
through a proprietary player using the Macromedia Flash format.
206

The demonstration by the MPAA is available for viewing in the public records of the Copyright Office.
This is not the first time that this alternative to circumvention was raised in the Section 1201 rulemaking context, but
in the current proceeding, the quality of the copy was superior to the copy used in the demonstration given by the
MPAA at the 2006 hearings.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 59

Sound quality is critical in language classes, to ensure that students can understandthe dialogue and the technical differences. Music and theater classes need highquality sound to reflect correctly the tone of musical instruments, or the inflectionof the human voice. High image quality enable[s] students to see the nuances of
facial expressions and hand gestures. These subtle, non-verbal forms ofcommunication may convey the essential point of a clip used in psychology,sociology, or in literature classes.207
Given the fact that the quality obtained from camcording the screen appears to be ofreasonably good quality (particularly in comparison to the demonstrative evidence introduced at
the hearings three years ago), the question of the sufficiency of the quality from this noncircumventing alternative is significant . However, there are several considerations that diminish
the value of camcording the screen as a reasonable alternative to circumvention. First, whilealternative non-circumventing copying techniques, such as camcording the screen, may appear to
produce results comparable to the results from circumvention, they also require a significantly
higher monetary investment. When the cost of the equipment required to camcord from the screen
to accomplish high-quality output is demonstrated to be very high—in the realm of $1200 to$1500—the expense of such an option becomes a practical impediment to use.208 It is specious tosuggest that such an alternative means of copying CSS-protected DVDs is a reasonable substitutefor circumvention. Moreover, given the significant price, it cannot be said that camcording thescreen constitutes a “mere inconvenience.” The high cost of obtaining the content through video
camera capture is a significant obstacle for use.
Second, camcording the screen may appear to produce results of reasonably good quality,
but proponents argue credibly that this quality is, as a functional matter, inferior. Limiting uses
based on camcording the screen would adversely affect the ability to engage in many of theintended noninfringing uses.209 This is the case not only with respect to image/video quality, butalso sound quality.210
207

T Band, 5/6/09, at 122.

208

The record reveals that the cost of the equipment used by the MPAA in the demonstration exceeded$1500.00 including the video camera, the flat screen high definition television, the tripod, and the DVD player. See
T Seymour, 5/6/09, at 209 (“It’s about a $900 HD camera. You don’t need to use an HD, if you are just recording offof standard DVD. The monitor was $300.”); T Tushnet, 5/7/09, at 97 (“We were offered yesterday the prospect ofusing a $900 camera, plus a tripod -- which, by the way I priced, $300 -- plus a flat screen TV in a room that you canmake it completely dark.”).
209

See T Decherney, 5/6/09, at 118-119.

210

See T Band, 5/6/09, at 122.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 60

If a motion picture is camcorded from the screen, a technically degraded reproduction is
the result. Depending on the quality of the equipment and the conditions in which the screen isfilmed, the quality of the reproduction will vary. Although the quality may be sufficient for someuses, such as to show the general development of a scene, that quality will be degraded if the copy
must be edited or reformatted. The quality of the picture or sound may also be degraded by thesize or format of the performance of the work. For instance, a copy that appears adequate on atelevision screen may be quite grainy when displayed on a large screen in a classroom, as part ofa theatrical screening of a documentary film, or a noncommercial screening at a vidder event.211
Similarly, converting a reduced quality copy to a format typically used on user-generated content
sites may increase the degradation to a level where certain criticism or comment is obscured. The
proposed noninfringing uses may not be realized when the reproduction of the work entails
uncontrollable degradation of the image and/or sound. Because the point being made may be
subtle, the degradation in quality may impede the purpose of the use.212 The cost and degradation
issues related to camcording the screen diminish the value of this alternative to circumvention in asignificant number of situations relevant to the proposed class.213
Video Capture Software. In order to explore whether other alternatives to circumvention
were available to enable noninfringing uses of motion pictures on CSS-protected DVDs,questions about video capture software were raised at the hearings and in post-hearing questions.
Video capture software allows a computer user to capture the screen output of a DVD as it isbeing rendered on the computer monitor. It would appear that this screen capture occurs after
lawful decryption of the work has taken place in the DVD player. The Copyright Office inquired
about the legality of the use of such software and whether video capture software was similar to
camcording the screen with a video camera. Ultimately, and with qualifications, the MPAA statedthat the “capture software currently in general use” reproduced motion picture content after it has
been lawfully decrypted.214 As a consequence, the use of some types of video capture software is,211

See T Coppa, 5/7/09, at 111-112. While there is a record on the distortion that can occur at a live
premiere of a vid, the more compelling argument for vidders is the argument that follows—reduced quality input will
result in significant distortion in the reduced-quality formats for online viewing that constitute the primary way inwhich vids are viewed.
212

T Tushnet, 5/7/09, at 104-106, and T Coppa, 5/7/09, at 112-114.

213

See, e.g., How Much is that Geisha in the Window, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZr9wsZz_bk.;
see also R33 (Organization for Transformative Works) at 12-14. Women’s Work is available on the Organization forTransformative Works’ website at http://transformativeworks.org/projects/vidtestsuite. (Last visited 4/30/10.)
214

2009, at 3.

See Post-Hearing Response of MPAA to Copyright Office Questions relating to DVDs of June 19,

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 61

for purposes of Section 1201(a)(1), comparable to camcording the screen -- a process that has
been identified as a non-circumventing option for accomplishing noninfringing uses.
Particular types of screen capture software discussed at the hearings and in post-hearing
questions from the Copyright Office are available for less than $50, significantly less than thecosts associated with camcording the screen output. While a record has been established that costeffective alternative copying techniques, in the form of video capture software, are available forcopying portions of CSS-protected DVDs, and while the use of such software may be valuable forsome, or even many, noninfringing uses of motion pictures, the record also includes allegations
that a substantial number of noninfringing uses could not be adequately accomplished by the useof video capture software or the significantly more expensive alternative of camcording of thescreen.215 The demonstration that the need for high quality video was reasonably necessary toaccomplish a particular noninfringing purpose was a critical factor in the 2006 rulemaking
proceeding with respect to film and media studies professors. The evidence in the current
rulemaking demonstrates that some significant number of noninfringing uses and users would be
adversely affected if limited to non-circumventing alternatives. However, not all proponents
established a record that alternatives to circumvention would be insufficient to accomplish thepedagogical purpose of the use.
Educational Uses of Motion Pictures. Educators in various fields demonstrated that video
capture software produces pixilated output that reduces the overall video quality and, in somecases, may obscure the particular point to be made by the educator.216 Film and media studies
educators demonstrated that the inferior quality copies made with video capture software will
frustrate the goal of their intended use.217 In addition to functional problems encountered with thevideo output, the audio output was also either adversely affected by screen capture software,
resulting in poor quality or out-of-sync sound, or was impossible to obtain with some software.218
215

See generally the Copyright Office’s “DVD-related questions” on video capture software and the
responses received by the Office to these questions, http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/questions/index.html.
(Last visited 4/30/10.)
216

See, e.g., Post-Hearing Response of American Association of Law Libraries/Medical Library
Association and Special Libraries Association to Copyright Office Questions relating to DVDs of June 19 and 22,
2008, at 2-3.
217

218

See T Decherney, 5/6/09, at 233-235 and 245-246.

Id. It is possible that the complete inability to capture the sound of a motion picture might have been
avoided if the hardware acceleration on the host personal computer had been turned off, but the evidence
demonstrates that even with such an adjustment to the hardware, the sound quality would continue to be distorted.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 62

The importance of sound quality to some educators, such as language instructors who seek todemonstrate nuanced inflections, demonstrates that the use of video capture software is not a
viable alternative for a substantial number of noninfringing users.219
For the most part, opposition to the proposed classes was aimed at any expansion beyond
the scope of the existing class of works. The record in the current rulemaking continues to support
the need for for film and media studies professors in higher education settings to circumvent
access controls in may instances. A critical question is whether video capture software is anacceptable substitute for the intended noninfringing uses by other educators, as well as
documentary filmmakers and noncommercial, transformative creators. To the extent that thissoftware reasonably enables the noninfringing use, a broadening of the scope of the existing classmight not be warranted.
Some proponents argued for expansion of the existing class to include all college anduniversity educators, students in film and media studies courses, and students in any college anduniversity course, as well as teachers and students in the K-12 educational environment. While
there was some evidence that college and university professors and students have been, or are
likely to be, adversely affected by the inability to circumvent, a comparable case was not made byteachers and students in the K-12 context. This assessment was corroborated by NTIA’s
evaluation of the record.220
Proponents of an expansion of the class to include college and university professors
provided a number of specific examples that illustrated the need to designate an expanded class.
For instance, one proponent noted that a large portion of materials used in college and university
courses outside of film studies classes are subtitled, and degradation of the output can affect thelegibility of these subtitles.221 Similarly, foreign language instruction classes use scenes frommotion pictures in order to understand and differentiate between sounds and also to observe
gestures and facial expressions.222 Degraded audio and video quality will adversely affect theeducational purpose of the use of the clip. Another witness cited a college criminal justice teacher
See T De Kosnik, 5/1/09, at 60-61.
219

See T Kaiser, 5/1/09, at 21-26.

220

See NTIA Letter at 4-7.

221

See T Handman, 5/1/09, at 49.

222

See T Kaiser, 5/1/09, at 49.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 63

who noted that teaching police officers involves observational skills that can be developed by
performing clips from motion pictures for classroom observation and discussion.223 One proponent
pointed to the need for close observation of particular aspects of scenes in the course of legal andmedical education.224 The evidence did not demonstrate that every use of motion pictures in aclassroom requires the circumvention of CSS-protected DVDs.225 Compilations of high-quality
clips appear to be reasonably necessary for some pedagogical purposes in colleges anduniversities, but in other cases, moderate quality reproductions appear to be sufficient or highquality presentations may be rendered in non-circumventing ways. For instance, in some cases,
professors needing to perform only one clip in a class may be able to use the CSS-protected DVD
itself in a DVD player by cuing the scene up before class. In other situations, video capture
software appears to be sufficient in order to make the pedagogical point.226 For example, one
proponent of an expanded educational class stated that his use of WinTV2000 was important tohis educational goals in the classroom.227 However, this software appears to be video capture
software that records screen output. The record demonstrates that while a number ofnoninfringing uses may reasonably require higher quality than is available from video capture
software for the particular pedagogical purpose of the use, in some (probably a much greater)
number of classroom situations, compilations created through the use of video capture softwareare sufficient to accomplish the intended purpose of the use.
In contrast to the record for college and university professors, there is little evidence thatcollege and university students (other than those students in film or media studies classes) or K12 teachers and students need to use enhanced quality copies of DVD content. Although students
in college and university courses may, on occasion, need to create class projects or assignmentsthat create compilations of clips from motion pictures, there has been no factual demonstration of223

T Band, 5/6/09, at 123-124.

224

T Skalbeck, 5/6/09, at 166-167.

225

The record evidence did not show that all of the uses identified above necessarily require
circumvention. Further, it is not clear to the Register that the use of video capture software would not be adequate
for at least some of those uses.
226

See T Rife, 5/6/09, at 187-188, stating that she would use Camtasia software for creating compilationsof clips for the classroom if she would not be violating the law. Camtasia is video capture software (referred to as“screen recorder software” by its distributor, TechSmith) and appears to operate in the same manner as the noncircumventing video capture software demonstrated at the hearings.
227

See R13 (Frank Baker) at 1 (discussing the importance of using clips to demonstrate the “techniques of
persuasion” in commercials). Despite the fact that CSS-protected DVDs do not appear to be the source of mostcommercials, this comment is instructive for the educational benefits of non-circumventing alternatives.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 64

such a need or the likelihood of such a need for the ensuing three-year period. Moreover, to theextent that such a need is likely to exist, there has been no evidence introduced that alternatives tocircumvention, such as the use of video capture software, would be unable to sufficiently
accommodate those needs.
As with college and university students, the factual record on the educational need forcircumvention by K-12 teachers and students is absent. Although a few proponents generally
asserted the need for the extension of the class to include K-12 education,228 specific evidence of
why non-circumventing alternatives were, or would be, insufficient for educational purposes was
not demonstrated. The submission of assorted hypothetical situations in which non-circumventing
alternatives might not be sufficient for educational purposes did not purport to provide evidenceof the prohibition’s adverse effect on noninfringing uses, but rather provided speculation about
hypothetical situations that could or might be affected if they were attempted.229 Mere conjecturethat a particular use could be affected by the prohibition is insufficient to establish a likelihood ofharm. In fact, the record indicates that video capture software resolves many of the problems
identified by the proponents of expansion of the class. Video capture software allows teachers andstudents to use clips from motion pictures released on CSS-protected DVDs for educational
purposes when use of the DVD itself would cause teachers to incur excessive classroom time tolocate particular scenes. Video capture software also resolves the cost and other problems thatwere asserted to make camcording of the screen an insufficient alternative for teachers andstudents. 230 Moreover, by using video capture software, teachers will not have to be concerned
about whether they are running afoul of Section 1201; the only legal questions that they must
confront are those that have existed since the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act: (1) is the
reproduction a fair use or (2) is the public performance of a lawful reproduction within the scopeof Section 110(1)?
Of critical importance to the class proposed by film and media studies professors in theprevious rulemaking was the demonstrated need for high-quality portions of motion pictures inorder to fulfill a noninfringing purpose. The identification of adverse effects of the prohibition on
228

See C4C and 4D (Hobbs); see also, T Hobbs, 5/8/09, at 126-127, 129, 132, 135, 263, and 283.

229
See Post-Hearing Response of Jaszi (on behalf of Renee Hobbs) to Copyright Office Questions relating
to DVDs of July 10, 2009.
230

Costs relating to camcording the screen have been addressed, supra. Hobbs also stated that theinability to obtain a sufficiently darkened room for a successful camcording session demonstrated that this method
was not a viable alternative to circumvention. One can ask whether conducting the camcording after dark would
resolve that alleged obstacle.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 65

noninfringing uses must be provided with sufficient specificity to analyze the issue. In thisrulemaking, specific examples have been provided on behalf of college and university professors
as well as college and university film and media studies students regarding situations in which
other alternatives have been or are likely to be insufficient for the intended pedagogical purposeof the use. Such specificity has not been established for college and university students in general,or for K-12 teachers and students. The record in this rulemaking establishes that video capture
software is more likely than not to meet the needs of college and university students (other thanthose in film and media studies classes) as well as K-12 teachers and students. Given the lack ofany specific evidence to the contrary, the prposed expansion of the existing class is not justified
by the record.
The Register agrees with NTIA that proponents of a class extending to teachers andstudents in the K-12 setting have not proven their case. However, the Register finds that the sameis true with respect to college and university students outside of film and media studies courses.
As the Assistant Secretary stated: “proponents persuasively demonstrate that while film andmedia studies professors have an obvious need to use clips in their instruction, other subject
matter instructors at the university level also have a need to use clips to supplement effective
instruction.”231 A comparable showing was not made in relation to college and university students
generally. Without such proof, the Register does not believe that designating a class of works the
direct beneficiaries of which include all college and university students is justified.
The Register is also not convinced that there is sufficient basis to limit the class to DVDs
owned by an institution or department library. There appears to be no good reason why aprofessor who has not lawfully acquired a lawfully made DVD should not be able to use the DVD
in order to fulfill his or her pedagogical purpose if the DVD cannot be found in the departmental
library or the college or university library. No evidence was introduced to suggest that harm tocopyright owners’ interests would result from professors’ noninfringing uses of lawfully acquired
DVDs.
Documentary Filmmakers’ Use of Motion Pictures. Documentary filmmakers andnoncommercial users have also provided persuasive evidence that non-circumventing alternativemeans of obtaining portions of DVDs cannot substitute for the decrypted content obtained
through circumvention. Documentary filmmakers demonstrated that, for example, FCC
requirements demand that the “sync signal, the blanking signal, [and] the color burst signal” be
231

Id. at 4.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 66

within certain specifications that can only reasonably be accomplished with the use of a portion ofa motion picture from a decrypted DVD.232 Documentary filmmakers also note that distributors of
their films for theatrical exhibition generally require that the films meet certain quality standards
that cannot be met by alternative means of making copies, including video capture software.233
Thus, neither video capture software nor camcording is a viable option.
Noncommercial, Transformative Users of Motion Pictures. Noncommercial,transformative users have also sufficiently demonstrated that certain uses require high quality inorder for the purpose of the use to be sufficiently expressed and communicated. For instance,
where focus on background material in a motion picture is essential to the transformative purpose,as exemplified in the situation of bringing the background to the foreground, the use of decrypted
DVDs is necessary to make the point.234 One particular example of “bringing the background to
the foreground” was demonstrated in the vid, How Much Is That Geisha In The Window, byLierdumoa. This vid criticizes and comments upon Joss Whedon’s science fiction televisionseries Firefly. The series incorporates Asian culture and art, but the vid demonstrates that almost
no Asian characters are featured and that they appear only in the background. The vid concludes
with a text screen that states: “There is only one Asian actor with English dialogue in all ofFirefly” and in the next screen states, “She plays a whore.”235 The creator of the vid also argues
that “Southern culture, particularly the confederacy is perhaps the *main* thing Joss fetishizes in
Firefly. It is a post civil war story from the point of view of the side that lost and all the charactersspeak in a bastardized Southern dialect.”236
Moreover, they assert that because noncommercial users typically perform their works ona “lossy” medium such as the Internet, if a transformative user begins with a work of degraded
quality, the further degradation that will likely occur in rendering the work to the public cancompletely obscure the purpose of the use. For instance, Women’s Work, by Luminosity andSisabet, assembles short clips from the television series Supernatural depicting images of women232

T Morrissette, 5/7/09, at 29-30 and 159-160.

233

T Quinn, 5/7/09, at 15 and T Morrissette, 5/7/09, at 29-40.

234

T Tushnet, 5/7/09, at 104-106 and T Coppa, 5/7/09, at 112-114.

235

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZr9wsZz_bk. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

236

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 67

who are “shown only as eroticized, suffering or demonized.”237 In a number of the clips, theimages are difficult to see and had this video been made using pixilated video capture, it isreasonably likely that the point of many scenes’ inclusion would not be perceptible.238
Several vids cited in the record reveal that extensive editing is often performed on theclips reproduced from motion pictures. For instance, in Luminosity’s Vogue, (using clips from the
motion picture 300 to cast the violence in scenes from the movie in an aesthetically modified
manner), not only are clips often rendered side-by-side and synchronized, but there is also color
and timing modification of the clips used.239 Other vids also modify the original clips and images,
saturating them with color and morphing images into others. For instance, Lim’s This Is How It
Works (using clips from the series Stargate: Atlantis)240 and Us (with clips from a long list ofmovies)241 both morph and colorize clips to serve the messages of the vids. Although some vids
cited do not significantly alter the actual images, the pace of the clips or the focus on a particularpart of the clip by the vidder tend to demand clarity of the clips in order to perceive the purpose
for inclusion. For instance, in Closer, by T. Jonesy and Killa, the vidders present an alternativeinterpretation of an episode from Star Trek in order to hypothesize about the relationship between
Captain Kirk and Spock.242 In Handlebars, by Seah and Margie, the vidders examine the Doctor
character in the series Dr. Who, extracting a multitude of short clips from the series todemonstrate the development of the character while also choosing scenes that fit the lyrics of thesong that accompanies the clips.243 In the course of the character development, the vidders begin
whimsically, and then reveal how the smaller exercises of power lead to violence and destruction
at the Doctor’s hands. This vid criticizes the “moral blind spots by recontextualizing events
viewers have already seen.”244 Although some may question the significance of the comment or
237

R33 (Organization for Transformative Works) at 2. Women’s Work is available on the Organization forTransformative Works’ website at: http://transformativeworks.org/projects/vidtestsuite. (Last visited 4/30/10.)
238

See id. For example, one scene depicting a woman being decapitated in the background or anotherscene depicting a woman being hoisted into the air by a noose would likely not have been perceptible if the qualityof the capture was degraded.
239

See http://www.blip.tv/file/2289271. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

240

See http://transformativeworks.org/node/552. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

241

See http://www.blip.tv/file/2286307. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

242

See http://www.blip.tv/file/2289542. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

243

See http://flummery.org/. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

244

See http://transformativeworks.org/node/552. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 68

criticism at issue in these vids, some comment or criticism is involved that either requires orsignificantly benefits from the use of high quality reproductions of the clips from motion pictures.
The Register does not take a position on whether each and every use of a clip in vids citedin this section constitutes a noninfringing use. The point of the examples is that frequently when
one is engaging in commentary about audiovisual works, it is necessary to use high quality
reproductions in order to make one’s point.
Authorization from the Copyright Owner as a Substitute for Circumvention. The
proponents of a class of works that would permit circumvention in order to use portions of CSSprotected DVDs for comment or criticism in education, documentary filmmaking andnoncommercial videos all presented evidence that some of their uses warranted circumvention of
CSS in order to accomplish their noninfringing purpose. Opponents of the proposed classes statedthat the availability of authorization from the copyright owner is a reasonable alternative todesignating a class of works that are not subject to the prohibition on circumvention. For
example, one opponent discussed a beta film clip service that seeks to streamline the permissions
process, and also introduced letters seeking permission to use works and the responses from the
copyright owner.245 However, there was no evidence demonstrating that it was likely that an
efficient permission service covering most motion pictures would be functional in themarketplace during the next three-year period.
Proponents of the class also persuasively argued that permission or authorization was nota viable substitute for the independent ability to make a noninfringing use on a timely basis.246 The
record included responses to requests to use works from copyright owners. These responses
revealed why permission often is not an adequate substitute for the ability to make noninfringing
use without having to seek permission. For instance, there was evidence in the record that
permission may be contingent upon receiving further permission from additional entities forvarious potential rights.247 Educators also made the point that in light of the time and effort
required to obtain permission, it “would be inefficient and retard the spontaneity of classroom

245

T Aistars, 5/6/09, at 220-221 and 278-283.

246

Ts Hobbs and Decherney, 5/6/09, at 283-285.

247

T Aistars, 5/6/09, at 279-281 (conditioning permission on obtaining further permission from the Screen
Actors’ Guild).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 69

instruction in which professors must respond quickly to student questions and needs.”248 On thepresent record, permission does not appear to be a viable substitute for designation of a class ofworks in order to address the prohibition’s impact on noninfringing uses.
The record demonstrates that many works available on CSS-protected DVD are notavailable in unprotected formats and that alternative means of obtaining clips, in a wide range ofsituations related to the use of CSS-protected DVDs, are insufficient to accomplish the intended
use. The lack of alternative formats or alternative means to accomplish the noninfringing uses
answers the inquiry under the first factor to be considered by the Librarian in the statutory factorsof Section 1201(a)(1)(C). This factor weighs in favor of a designation of an appropriate class ofworks. This analysis also demonstrates that the prohibition on circumvention is, in a substantial
number of cases, having an adverse effect on the ability of users of motion pictures on DVDs toengage in noninfringing uses of those works.
Factor Two
Turning to the second statutory factor, the availability for use for nonprofit archival,
preservation, and educational uses, the focus on education is relevant to the proposals relating to
educational uses of CSS-protected DVDs. The proponents have demonstrated that motion picturescontained on CSS-protected DVDs are not available for some significant uses by educators andstudents. CSS-protected DVDs can be accessed in the classroom with the use of widely-available,authorized DVD players, but for the reasons stated above, if professors or film and media studies
students need to use multiple high-quality clips from a DVD or portions of high-quality clips
from numerous motion pictures for educational uses, it is evident that a substantial number ofuses in higher education cannot be achieved by resort to alternative formats or alternative meansof copying. However, some educational uses can be achieved without resorting to circumvention.
This factor thus weighs in favor of designating a properly tailored class of works for thoseeducational uses in higher education that cannot be accomplished without circumvention.
Documentary filmmakers made the case that “[d]ocumentary films are intrinsicallyeducational in that they purport to tell the truth or document reality, and of course, many
documentary films are made specially for use in the classroom setting. Additionally,
documentary films are used as teaching tools at all educational levels for a variety of purposes.”249
248

C4E (Decherney) at 9.

249

C11B (Kartemquin) at 12.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 70

Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(ii) therefore also weighs in favor of crafting a class of works that includes
use in documentary films.
However, this factor does not appear to have any bearing – positive or negative -- withrespect to the proposal on behalf of other noncommercial, transformative users.
Factor Three
The third factor, the impact that the prohibition on circumvention has on criticism,comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is a critical factor in the context ofthe proposals related to CSS-protected DVDs. Most of the uses in the DVD-related proposals
involve the adverse effect of the prohibition on criticism, comment, or teaching. Educators havedemonstrated that a subset of noninfringing uses of works on CSS-protected DVDs are hamperedor precluded as a result of the prohibition on circumvention. Documentary filmmakers havedemonstrated that their ability to use motion pictures for purposes of noninfringing criticism,comment or illustration is inhibited by the prohibition. Proponents on behalf of vidders havedemonstrated that the creation of noninfringing videos for purposes of comment or criticism canalso be adversely affected by the prohibition. The importance of criticism, comment andeducation in our society, as evidenced by the existence of this statutory factor, strongly weighs infavor of designating a class of works in order to permit circumvention for purposes of enabling
the use of portions of motion pictures for noninfringing uses.
Factor Four
The fourth factor, the effect of circumvention on the market for or value of copyrighted
works, also weighs in favor of a designating a class. The proponents of a class related to CSSprotected DVDs for education, documentary filmmaking and other noncommercial uses have allplaced in evidence the need to use portions of copyrighted motion pictures in certain situations. It
is important to add, however, that no proponent has demonstrated the need to circumvent in order
to copy a motion picture in its entirety, and no proponent has demonstrated the need to use aquantitatively large percentage of a motion picture. The motion picture industry has a legitimate
interest in preventing motion pictures from being copied in their entirety or in a manner thatwould adversely affect the market for or value of these works, including reasonable derivative
markets. Unquestionably, motion pictures involve significant expense to create and have become
a vital creative component of American culture. Indeed, motion pictures are so central to modern

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 71

American society and the lives of individual citizens that the need to comment upon and criticize
these works has become an important form of social discourse. Motion pictures have anenormous influence on our social, political and cultural identity, and the record in this rulemaking
illustrates that educators need to teach and demonstrate to students the artistic, communicativeand rhetorical capabilities of this medium. The medium is, in some educational situations, therelevant “text” for the class. Similarly, as documentary filmmakers and noncommercial vidders
seek to comment or criticize in the motion picture medium, their subject frequently focuses on or
includes prior uses of this medium. Each of the uses involving criticism or comment may betransformative, and thereby unlikely to affect the relevant markets for the original work.
The proposed classes, if properly limited in scope to portions of motion pictures and forthe purposes asserted by the proponents (criticism and comment), would not adversely affect themarket for or value of these works. The noninfringing, transformative uses that would be enabled
or facilitated by designating a properly-fashioned class of works are the kinds of uses that thisrulemaking was intended to preserve. Such uses would also preserve such noninfringing uses as afree-speech safeguard in copyright law.
Other Factors
The Librarian is also authorized to take into account other factors that are appropriate inparticular circumstances. In the case of CSS-protected DVDs, the fact that a technologicalmeasure that controls access is being used predominantly for the purpose of preventing
reproduction and other rights of the copyright owner is a relevant consideration in this case. The
fact that Congress clearly distinguished between measures that control access and measures that
protect the rights of the copyright owner is undisputed. On the record before the Register ten
years ago, there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions based on this distinction in
relation to noninfringing uses of CSS-protected DVDs. Times have changed. The record now
demonstrates that socially-beneficial noninfringing uses are being adversely affected by theprohibition on circumvention in relation to certain uses of portions of motion pictures on CSSprotected DVDs. In addition to the other four factors weighing in favor of designating a class ofworks, the fact that in this case the effect of the access control is not to prevent unauthorizedaccess, but rather to restrict uses of motion pictures, is an additional factor weighing in favor ofdesignating a class. There is no question that digital reproduction poses a serious threat to
copyright creators and owners. But the purpose of the rulemaking is to assess whether methods ofcontrolling access to works that fall within the scope of the prohibition are, often unintentionally,

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 72

also adversely affecting noninfringing uses. The present record demonstrates that the deployment
of CSS over time has begun to adversely affect some legitimate uses of motion pictures. This ispresumably an unintended by-product of the use of CSS to protect the copyright owners’
legitimate interests, but one that requires a carefully balanced and properly tailored exception to
the default prohibition. The fact that a technological measure that qualifies as an access control isaffecting use, not access, is another relevant consideration for the Librarian.
Classes of Works Defined and Explained
For the foregoing reasons, the Register recommends that the Librarian designate thefollowing class of works:
Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that areprotected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention isaccomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short
portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism orcomment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes andhas reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to
fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:•

Educational uses by college and university professors and bycollege and university film and media studies students;•

Documentary filmmaking;•Noncommercial videos

Except for the educational subset, this recommendation does not specify particular users
but rather refines the class by reference to particular uses identified in the record. The Register
finds that tailoring the class to the purpose of the use is the optimal means of permitting theseusers to accomplish their purpose. Documentary filmmakers seek to use portions of motion
pictures for criticism or comment, including illustration of a particular point, and it is the use ofsuch portions that the Register has concluded will often be a fair use. The noncommercial videos
identified by proponents of proposed Class 11A also often use portions of motion pictures forcomment and criticism (including parody). These transformative uses – again involving portionsof motion pictures -- are socially beneficial uses that implicate core First Amendment values
reflected in the fair use doctrine. Educators’ and students’ use of portions of motion pictures
typically involve criticism (an assessment of a work; considered judgment of or discussion about

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 73

the qualities of something, especially a creative work) and comment (discussion, analysis,
criticism, explanation or illustration).
The Register sees no workable way to further qualify the class of works for documentary
filmmaking and noncommercial videos by including specific requirements relating to the identifyof the users who would be permitted to circumvent. While the proponents of the class pertaining
to documentary films suggested that persons eligible to take advantage of that class be limited to
documentary filmmakers who are members of an organization of filmmakers or are enrolled in afilm program or film production course at a post-secondary educational institution, the Register
does not believe that it is appropriate to require membership in any particular organization inorder to qualify. It makes sense to conclude that the best way to determine whether someone is adocumentary filmmaker is to ask whether that person is making a documentary film. Further,noncommercial videos that comment on motion pictures can be made by anyone; fair use does notdepend upon the credentials of the person engaging in the noninfringing act.
However, the record is different with respect to the proposed class relating to educational
uses. Proponents have not proved that all educational uses of motion pictures on CSS-protected
DVDS have been adversely affected by the prohibition on circumvention. Moreover, clear
dividing lines are available for certain classes of users in the educational context that are notavailable with respect to documentary filmmakers or noncommercial transformative users.
College and university professors can easily be distinguished from K-12 teachers, and college anduniversity film and media studies students can easily be distinguished from other college anduniversity students, as well as from K-12 students. The recommended class expands upon theexisting class in a manner that comports with the evidence introduced in this rulemaking
proceeding. Although not all educators will directly benefit from the designation of this class, theclarified status of video capture software is likely to benefit all educators, including those who
cannot benefit from the recommended class, in their ability to make non-circumventing,noninfringing uses of motion pictures on CSS-protected DVDs. If such alternatives aredemonstrated to be insufficient for educators or students who cannot take advantage of the newlydesignated class, the Register assumes that evidence to that effect will be introduced in futurerulemaking proceedings.
The scope of the class is appropriately tailored in relation to the cases that were made fordesignating a class of works. For instance, only those uses that involve creating new works(including compilations) that are for specific, transformative purposes that can rather easily beRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 74

identified objectively (namely, criticism and comment) are within the scope of the class. Those
who circumvent CSS for the purpose of copying a portion of a motion picture for exploitation ofthat portion, or for marketing purposes, rather than for the purposes identified in the designationof the recommended class, will not qualify to invoke the Section 1201(a)(1)(D) exemption. Those
who circumvent in order to extract portions of a motion picture purely to entertain also falloutside of the exemption. Similarly, extensive use of a work will also fall outside of the
exemption. Even though it is possible that the use of a significant portion of a work may in somecases qualify as a fair use, the record does not demonstrate that the use of large amounts of afeature-length motion picture are, or are likely to be, needed to serve the goals of criticism,comment and education in the contexts presented in this rulemaking. The fact that whole works
may be used in the classroom even with CSS intact (i.e., under the Section 110(1) exemption byusing a DVD player) eliminates the need for an expansive class. Documentary filmmakers andnoncommercial users have not demonstrated that either the use of a significant amount of amotion picture is noninfringing in their respective contexts, or that a significant amount istypically used in their works. The cases they made in this proceeding did not purport to suggestthat there is a legitimate need to use substantial portions of a motion picture in their work.
Limiting the class by reference to the purposes of criticism and comment protects ownersof copyrights in motion pictures from nontransformative uses that merely exploit their works forcommercial or predatory purposes. Limiting the permitted uses to “short portions” bolsters thelimitation based on the nature of the use, and tends to eliminate from the scope of the Section
1201(a)(1)(D) exemption uses that are more likely to be infringing. As noted above in thediscussion of the third fair use factor, the examples presented in the record consist of uses of short
portions; the record does not support designation of a class that would extend to anything beyond
use of short portions. Moreover, without limiting the class to permit use only of a portion of thework, the use of entire feature length motion pictures would be sanctioned. Because the current
record does not demonstrate a present or likely need for circumvention beyond short portions of awork, such a limitation is appropriate. While a different record in the future could lead to adifferent result, the current record demonstrates only that the prohibition on circumvention has
had an adverse effect on the ability to use short portions of the feature length film or of some ofthe other extra content, such as interviews and outtakes contained on a DVD, for the purposes ofcriticism and comment. The use of technology to prevent piracy is consistent with the purpose of
the DMCA and a class of works designated under Section 1201(a)(1)(C) must be tailored tobalance the respective interests of affected parties. The Register believes that the recommendationaccomplishes this goal.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 75

Another limitation is that the person engaging in the circumvention must believe and havereasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary in order to fulfill the purpose of
the use – i.e., the purpose of criticism or comment. This qualification is included in order toprovide some degree of assurance that the designation of this class may not be used as a pretext
for circumvention in cases where circumvention was not really necessary in order to engage in thenoninfringing use. If, for example, it would have been sufficient for purposes of thenoninfringing criticism or comment to use screen capture software rather than to circumvent inorder to obtain a higher quality digital film clip, and if the person engaging in the circumvention
did not both (1) actually and (2) reasonably believe that circumvention was necessary in order toengage in such criticism or comment, the prohibition on circumvention would remain in force.
This might be the case, for example, when the somewhat inferior copy made using screen capture
software would be perfectly adequate for purposes of demonstrating a point being made about thestory line of a motion picture.
The recommended class is also based on motion pictures and intentionally does not extend
to all audiovisual works. Section 101 of title 17 defines motion pictures as follows:“Motion pictures” are audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images
which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together withaccompanying sounds, if any.250
Section 101 defines audiovisual works as follows:“Audiovisual works” are works that consist of a series of related images which are
intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as
projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds,
if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, inwhich the works are embodied.251“Motion pictures” are a subset (albeit a very large one) of “audiovisual works.” All of theuses identified in the record relating to CSS-protected DVDs involved motion pictures, such asfeature films, television series episodes, interviews, commercials, trailers, etc. All involve related
images shown in succession that impart an impression of motion. No evidence was introduced inrelation to audiovisual works outside of the subset of motion pictures, such as video games or250

17 U.S.C. § 101.

251

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 76slide presentations. Based on the record, there is no basis for extending the class beyond that ofmotion pictures.
The Register also notes the objection by the Joint Creators that the designation of a classof works that is defined with reference to the nature of the use or user is a deviation fromstatements made by the Register in earlier recommendations.252 As the Register has stated above, aclass of works must begin with a category, categories, or a subcategory of copyrightable subject
matter and then refine that starting point based on the facts present in the record. As the HouseManager’s Report stated:
Deciding the scope or boundaries of a ‘particular class’ of copyrighted works as towhich the prohibition contained in section 1201(a)(1) has been shown to have hadan adverse impact is an important issue to be determined during the rulemaking
proceedings. The illustrative list of categories appearing in section 102 of Title 17
is only a starting point for this decision.253
In all cases, the scope of a class is determined on the basis of the rulemaking record during
a particular three-year period. Attributes of a class are generally incapable of being circumscribedin a factual vacuum. While the Register continues to believe that a class of, for example, “motion
pictures for non-infringing purposes” or “fair uses of motion pictures” would not constitute an
appropriate class, the relationship between the “class of works” and the particular non-infringing
uses that were proven to be, or likely to be, adversely affected may be, in certain cases, theoptimal means of balancing the interests identified in the record. Similarly, the Register believes
that circumscribing a class by a long laundry list of limitations is also inappropriate in a factual
vacuum.254 While one or many conditions may be appropriate in a particular factual situation, acomprehensive list of limitations is inappropriate as a general proposition.
The Register refined the designation of a class in 2006 as a result of the unique facts
presented in that particular rulemaking. That refinement was not a generalized change to thenature of a class of works, but a careful attempt to designate a class that was neither too broad nor

252

See Post-Hearing Response of MPAA to Copyright Office Questions relating to DVDs of August 21,
2009, at 8-12.
253

254

House Manager’s Report at 7.

See Post-Hearing Response of MPAA to Copyright Office Questions relating to DVDs of August 21,
2009, at 10-12.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 77

too narrow.255 In the current context, if refinement of the class in relation to the nature of theparticular use were unavailable, the class might have been designated to be “motion pictures on
CSS-protected DVDs.” An exemption of such breadth would allow circumvention for many usesthat were not presented in the record of this rulemaking and presumably would draw muchstronger objections from opponents of the proposed classes than the more carefully crafted classrecommended herein. The Register will continue to assess the scope of a class in relation to eachparticular proposal and the market context in which that proposal is raised. As Congress
indicated, determining the scope of the class is a critical component of the examination in therulemaking process and the Register will consider any arguments about the appropriate means ofcrafting the scope of a particular class.
B.

Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute
software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole
purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they havebeen lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

Background. Mobile phones have evolved from relatively simple communication devices
into increasingly sophisticated, advanced computing devices with the capability to run a variety
of applications and perform or display numerous types of copyrighted works. These“smartphones”256 have, in today’s society, begun to supplant laptops as the predominant mobile
device due to their portability, cost, and increasing computing capacity.257 Devices, such as
Apple’s iPhone, allow users to make wireless phone calls, write and receive text messages,
browse the Internet, read and send e-mail, run operating system and application programs, display
images, photographs, and documents, store and display or perform ebooks, music and motion
pictures. The iPhone, in particular, has created a robust environment on which third-party
programmers can create applications for use on that device. According to the testimony in this255

House Manager’s Report at 7.

256

Smartphones are mobile phones with advanced data features and keyboards. What makes the phone“smart” is its ability to manage and transmit data in addition to voice calls. See CTIA Wireless Glossary of Terms,
http://www.ctia.org/consumer_info/index.cfm/AID/10406. (Last visited 4/30/10.) In the second quarter of 2009, 28%
of all handsets sold were smartphones. See Letter from Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, CTIA, toMarlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, February 12, 2010,
http://files.ctia.org/pdf/filings/100212_Wireless_Competition_Update_-_Innovation_and_Investment_FINAL.pdf.
It is important to recognize that not all mobile phones in today’s wireless marketplace are smartphones as some aredesigned simply to provide voice service.
257

See Mark Hamblin, Businesses Eye Smartphones to Supplant Laptops, PCWorld, November 23, 2008,at http://www.pcworld.com/article/154377/businesses_eye_smartphones_to_supplant_laptops.html. (Last visited
4/30/10.)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 78

proceeding, as of May 1, 2009, there were over 35,000 authorized applications available for theiPhone on Apple’s App Store, making it the world’s largest application marketplace.258
Apple, as well as several other mobile phone manufacturers, have allegedly placed
restrictions on which particular third-party applications can be used in conjunction with aparticular device. Despite the fact that proponents have alleged that a number of manufacturers(or, in some cases, providers) impose technological restrictions on interoperability between thirdparty applications and the operational programs resident on the devices themselves, the vast
majority of the record in this rulemaking relates to one particular device and its restrictions—theApple iPhone.259 In part, this is the result of the Apple iPhone becoming the best selling mobile
phone handset in the United States.260
Comments. EFF proposed an class of works to allow circumvention of the technologicalmeasures that prevent third-party software applications from being installed and run on wirelesstelephone handsets. The Apple iPhone is used by EFF to illustrate its argument that theprohibition on circumvention is adversely affecting non-infringing uses by smartphone users. EFF
states that Apple uses technological measures “to prevent iPhone owners from loading or
executing applications unless they are purchased from Apple’s own iTunes App Store orotherwise approved by Apple.”261 Apple’s testimony confirmed that any software to be used on
the iPhone must begin with the firmware, in this case, the read-only memory, or “ROM,” in the
hardware,262 which contains information necessary for starting up the iPhone.263 The secure ROM
contains “crypto keys” that validate and establish a “root of trust” necessary to load the258

T Joswiak, 5/1/09, at 231.

259

Some evidence was introduced in the record regarding other smartphones, such as the G1 phone from
T-Mobile (with Google’s Android operating system) and the Nokia 2366i from Verizon. See C5A (EFF) at 6 andR19 (Hallett) at 1. The lack of development in the record precludes an analysis of these examples.
260

R49 (EFF) Appendix A: “A Technical Overview of Smart Phone Jailbreaking and Unlocking,” at 10.

261

C5A (EFF) at 4.

262
Firmware can be identified as a microprogram present on read-only memory (“ROM”) modules,
containing low-level (hexadecimal machine code) software. See http://www.topbits.com/flashing-firmware.html.
(Last visited 5/1/10). For purposes of this discussion, firmware may be defined as a “computer program contained
permanently in a hardware device (as a read-only memory).” See http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/Firmware. (Last visited 4/30/10.)
263

T Joswiak, 5/1/09, at 234.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 79“bootloader” program.264 The bootloader contains the information necessary for initializing the
hardware and the hardware’s operating system, a modified version of Apple’s OS X.265 The
iPhone operating system “does everything necessary to run the iPhone, as well as validate each of
the applications through a signature each time they’re launched.”266 This chain or “root of trust” isintended “to make it impossible for users to substitute their own software for Apple’s at any pointin the process; even if they can somehow change the code installed on the phone, the signaturechecking is intended to prevent the modified software from running.”267 Despite this validation
process, a very large number of purchasers of iPhones have circumvented these restrictions, apractice colloquially referred to as “jailbreaking,” in order to install third-party applications thathave been rejected by Apple for inclusion into its “Apps Store.”268
EFF argued that jailbreaking is a non-infringing activity for three reasons. First, it allegesthat at least in some cases, jailbreaking can be done within the scope of what is authorized under
the licence Apple grants to every iPhone user. It states that “[t]o the extent a jailbreaking
technique does not modify any of the individual software programs that comprise the iPhone
firmware collection, but instead simply adds additional software components to the collection, thepractice may not exceed the scope of the license to ‘use the iPhone software’ or constitute a‘modification’ of any Apple software components, any more than the addition of a new printerdriver to a computer constitutes a ‘modification’ of the operating system already installed on the264

Id; see also, R49 (EFF) Appendix A: “A Technical Overview of Smart Phone Jailbreaking and
Unlocking,” at 10-11(“The process begins with the bootrom, software burned into the iPhone’s permanent,
nonvolatile memory. The bootrom loads a piece of software called the LLB, which is stored in an area of memory
known as NOR flash. The LLB then loads a piece of software called iBoot, performing a digital signature check toensure that iBoot software has not been modified. iBoot then loads the operating system kernel, performing a digital
signature check to ensure that operating system software has not been modified. The operating system kernel thenloads and manages all other “userland” applications (essentially, all the applications that users interact with),
performing a digital signature check to ensure that the applications have been approved by Apple and have not been
modified.”)265

T Joswiak, 5/1/09, at 234. OS X is the operating system that is used to run many Apple computers and

266

Id.

267

R49 (EFF) at 11.

laptops268

EFF asserted that approximately 1.8 million iPhones have been jailbroken, constituting roughly 10% of
the iPhones in circulation. Of these 1.8 million jailbroken phones worldwide, approximately 400,000 are located in
the United States. See T von Lohmann, 5/1/09, at 245.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 80

computer.”269
Second, EFF asserted that “to the extent a jailbreak technique requires the reproduction or
adaptation of existing firmware beyond the scope of any license or other authorization by the
copyright owner, it would fall within the ambit of 17 U.S.C. § 1l7(a).”270 EFF contended that theiPhone owner is also the owner of the copy of the iPhone’s firmware and that jailbreaking falls
within the owner’s privilege “to adapt those copies to add new capabilities, so long as the changes
do not "harm the interests of the copyright proprietor.”271
Finally, EFF contended that in any event, jailbreaking constitutes fair use of the firmware
because jailbreaking is a purely noncommercial, private use of computer software, a largely
functional work that operates the phone, and that the phone owner must reuse the vast majority ofthe original firmware in order for the phone to operate. Because the phone owner is simply
modifying the firmware for her own use on the phone, there is no harm to the market for the
firmware.
Apple responded that jailbreaking by purchasers of the iPhone is a violation of theprohibition against circumvention of access controls. It cited that its validation system isnecessary to prevent: (1) crashes and instability: jailbroken iPhones crash more frequently andbecome unstable; (2) malfunctioning and safety: battery life, safe charging capacity and volume
control can all be affected (3) invasion of privacy: the data, camera, microphone and GPS
functions of the iPhone can be exploited by third-parties; (4) exposing children to ageinappropriate content: the App Store filters content made available to users, but jailbreaking
allows age-inappropriate content to be installed; (5) viruses and malware: without a secureenvironment, it is easier for malicious code to be injected into the iPhone “ecosystem;” and (6)the inability to update software: a jailbroken phone might prevent Apple software updates from269

C5A (EFF) at 8. EFF noted that the iPhone license permits the user to “use the iPhone Software on asingle Apple-branded iPhone,” but also obligates the iPhone owner not to “decrypt, modify, or create derivative
works of the iPhone Software.” Id. The Register declines to interpret the license to determine whether it permits
jailbreaking.
270

This provision provides that “it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program tomake or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: … that such a new
copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with amachine and that it is used in no other manner.”271

Id. at 8-9.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 81loading and installing.272 Apple also cited the risks and damage that can occur with its developer
partners when the iPhone ecosystem is compromised, including: network impact, piracy ofdevelopers’ applications, and the instability of developers’ applications. Jailbreaking is also
claimed to harm Apple’s goodwill with its customers, increase Apple’s support costs, harm
developer relationships, damage Apple’s brand, and limit its ability to innovate.273
Apple further contended that modifying Apple’s operating system leads to the creation of
an infringing derivative work. In Apple’s view, an iPhone purchaser’s interest in adding
applications that are not approved by Apple to an iPhone constitutes an infringing act andtherefore the prohibition is not adversely affecting non-infringing uses when it prevents suchconduct. Apple further argued that there are no defenses to infringement that transform
jailbreaking into a non-infringing act. First, it argued that Section 117 is inapplicable in relation
to purchasers of an iPhone because they are licensees of the computer programs contained on thephone, not owners of copies of the computer programs as Section117 requires. Apple also
asserted that “the adaptation right of Section 117 can be negated by contract,” and that the iPhone
software license forbids modification of the iPhone software.274 It also argued that Section 117
does not apply when, as here, the modifications to the computer program are created by others
and then downloaded by end-users. Rather, the modifications must be made by the end-user or atleast authorized by the end user. Apple also argued that although Section 117 “allow[s] a user of
a computer program to add new features to it,” that permission is “subject to a number oflimitations,” including the limitation that “the right to add features can ‘only be exercised so longas they [do] not harm the interests of the copyright proprietor,’”275 and that jailbreaking does harmApple’s interests because it causes functional problems that diminish the value of the iPhone andthe software that makes it operate.276 Finally, Apple argued that because Section 117 permits
modifications to software only as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and “in no other manner,” and since jailbreaking entails the use of theiPhone and its software in a way that destroys its operational integrity, the “[u]se of these
copyrighted programs in a jailbroken phone is therefore use ‘in another manner’ that is not
272

T Joswiak, 5/1/09, at 236-239.

273

Id. at 240-242.

274

R30 (Apple) at 13-14.

275

Id. at 14, citing Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 622

276

Id. at 15-16.

(2005).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 82

covered by Section 117(a).”277
Second, Apple argued that the defense of fair use would not apply to this activity.
Reviewing the fair use factors set forth in Section 107, it pointed out that “although the use per seof the modified iPhone bootloader and OS on an individual handset is of a personal nature, it is
not a transformative use, and because a jailbroken OS is often used to play pirated content, suchactivity should be considered of a commercial nature since it avoids paying fees for the content.”
It argued that the second and third factors weigh against fair use “because the copyrighted works
at issue are highly creative and not factual in nature, and essentially the entire work is being
copied.” With respect to the fourth factor, it asserted that “the effect of these unauthorized uses is
to diminish the value of the copyrighted works to Apple.” It elaborated by stating that“jailbreaking the bootloader and the OS clearly diminishes the value of those copyrighted works
directly by giving rise to a host of problems in the safety, security and operation of the iPhone,and by substantially increasing Apple’s costs to support the software.” 278
EFF contended that the protection system implemented by Apple is unrelated to copyrightinterests, but rather is a business model decision to prevent competition.279 Similarly, intestimony, Charles Carreon stated that protecting access to a copyrighted work is not Apple’sgoal, but rather the purpose is to prevent interoperability with the device. In other words,
proponents of the proposed exemption believe that Apple’s goal is not to prevent reading,viewing, comprehension, understanding, or modification of creative content, but rather to prevent
execution, use, and functional modification of the binary code.280
Discussion. In order to meet their burden in favor of an exemption, proponents must firstshow that the prohibition is adversely affecting, or likely to have an adverse effect on, noninfringing uses. This, in turn, entails two distinct considerations. First, for the prohibition to becausally related to the adverse effect, a technological measure controlling access must be
protecting a copyrighted work. Second, the proponents must demonstrate that the prohibition isadversely affecting, or likely to adversely affect, a non-infringing use.
277

Id. at 17.

278

Id. at 17-18.

279

See R49 (EFF) at 6. Apple requires developers to pay a 30% commission on any sales through the App
Store and refuses to authorize applications that “duplicate functionality” offered by Apple’s own software or
AT&T’s services. C5A (EFF) at 5-6.
280

T Carreon, 5/1/09, at 283-284.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

1.

June 11, 2010

Page 83

The nature of the technological measureDuring the hearings, there was some dispute about the nature of the technologicalmeasures employed on the iPhone. Counsel for Apple argued that access controls simply prevent
one from gaining access to a work without authorization from the copyright owner. In contrast,
the system Apple employs does more than this—it is designed to prohibit modification of theoperating system and thus the measures that Apple employs are “essentially, quintessentially copy
controls.”281 Despite the fact that the purpose of Apple’s system of authentication is intended toprevent any modification of the operating system, the evidence in the record demonstrates that theoperation of iPhone software is protected by encryption which requires authentication by
cryptographic keys loaded into the bootloader which, in turn, authenticates the iBoot program andthe integrity of the operating system. This system of authentication and decryption meets thestatutory definition of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work because,in the ordinary course of its operation, the technological protection measure requires theapplication of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner,
to gain access to the work. In order to obtain access to the operating system that runs the iPhone,
the application of a particular process is required. While it is true that this authentication process
seeks to verify that modifications have not been made to the iBoot program or the operating
system program, the process denies access to the operating system if the process discovers thatmodifications have been made. This access control may also protect certain rights of the
copyright owner in the course of effectively controlling access.
Apple ultimately admits that the technological measures on the iPhone are “both copy
controls and access controls” and include encryption.282 And, encryption is a classic form ofaccess control.283 That admission makes Apple’s point that this process is fundamentally a copy
control, not an access control, more or less moot. To the extent that the technological measureson the iPhone are access controls – and both EFF and Apple appear to agree that they are, at leastin part, they are properly a subject of this rulemaking proceeding. To the extent that they are also281
T Hayes, 5/1/09, at 266. Apple’s written comment made no such argument and appeared to accept thecharacterization of the technological measures on the iPhone as access controls.
282

283

Id. at 296.

See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A) (defining, in the context of Section 1201(a), to “circumvent atechnological measure” as “to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work,” etc.). See also,
Commerce Comm. Report, at 39, 40 (characterizing encryption as an access control).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 84

technological measures that protect a right of a copyright owner, there is no prohibition on the
conduct of circumvention in the statute. Section 1201(b) only prohibits the manufacture,importation, offering, provision, or trafficking of technology, processes, services, devices orcomponents that circumvent a technological measure that protects the right of a copyright owner;
it does not make it unlawful to use such a tool or service in order to circumvent. A suit may bebrought against the entity trafficking in a device or service that facilitates circumvention of ameasure that protects a copyright owner’s rights, but no suit may be brought under Section
1201(b) against someone who uses such a tool to circumvent such a technological measure. Of
course, if the user of the circumvention tool circumvents in order to engage in infringement, thecopyright owner may file an infringement suit, but if the user circumvents in order to engage in a
non-infringing act, the user is not liable for any act under title 17.
In the case of the Apple iPhone, because the authentication process constitutes atechnological measure that effectively controls access, Section 1201(a)(1) would prohibit its
circumvention, including the use of a tool to circumvent. Thus, if no statutory exemption in
Section 1201 is applicable, the only means of avoiding liability under the prohibition in order toaccomplish a non-infringing use is through this rulemaking proceeding. The next critical step in
the analysis is to determine whether technological measures controlling access on the iPhone areadversely affecting a non-infringing use or uses. Before resolving that question, however, apotentially relevant statutory exemption may warrant consideration.
Apple and other opponents of the proposed class284 argue that the activity sought to beaccomplished by proponents of the class falls within the realm of reverse engineering for which
Congress enacted a specific statutory exemption.285 It is true that the activity sought to beaccomplished relates to making independently created computer programs (here, third-party
applications) interoperable with Apple’s modified OS X operating system on the iPhone.
However, iPhone owners do not seek to reverse engineer their phones in order to installinteroperable, unapproved applications on their iPhone. They seek to use a tool that enables
unauthorized applications to run on the iPhone. In other words, users seek to circumvent theaccess control in order to install the programs with the assistance of a previously created tool,
device, or program that enables such installation and operation.
Section 1201(f) may in some cases be a defense to the manufacture and distribution of
284

See, e.g., R46 (Joint Creators) at 36-38.

285

See R30 (Apple) at 2 and 25.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 85such tools or programs. Section 1201(f) exempts not only the act of circumvention for the purposeof reverse engineering to identify and analyze those elements of a computer program that arenecessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with otherprograms, but it also exempts liability under Sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) for circumvention
in order to develop and employ technological means to circumvent under certain conditions aslong as such activity does not constitute infringement under title 17.286 Moreover, Section
1201(f)(3) allows disseminating the information acquired about achieving interoperability and“the means permitted under paragraph (2)” to be made available to others.287 Such activities areoutside the scope of this rulemaking, and they are not the activities for which an exemption issought. Thus, Section 1201(f) does not appear to limit the liability of smartphone owners who
jailbreak their devices in order to add software applications not authorized by the device
manufacturer or service provider.
This rulemaking is the appropriate forum to address whether an exemption to theprohibition is warranted as a result of the adverse effects on non-infringing uses. The question
before the Register is whether purchasers of smartphones have been adversely affected in theirability to make noninfringing uses. The non-infringing use alleged is the purchasers’ ability to
add independently created computer programs to their phones.
The evidence supports the contention that a technological measure is adversely affecting
adding applications to the iPhone. The evidence in the record suggests that approximately
350,000 iPhone owners have jailbroken their iPhones to load applications from one independent
app store alone.288 The record tends to indicate that the total number of jailbroken iPhones issignificantly higher, constituting up to ten percent of all iPhones sold.289 Given the scale ofApple’s iPhone market, this effect must be accepted as substantial in relation to the smartphonemarket.290 Although the vast majority of the evidence relates solely to the iPhone, that showing
combined with the anecdotal evidence relating to other smartphones establishes an effect on use
286

17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)(2).

287

17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)(3).

288

C11A (EFF) at 5, citing Erica Sadun, The story behind Cydia on the iPhone, Ars Technica, at
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/10/the-story-behind-cydia-on-the-iphone.ars. (Last visited 4/30/10.)

States).

289

T von Lohmann, 5/1/09, at 245.

290

R49 (EFF) Appendix A at 10 (noting that iPhone has become the best selling handset in the United

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 86that is more than merely trivial or anecdotal. The next question to resolve is whether this desired
use is non-infringing.
2.

The nature of the underlying use

The critical determination in considering this proposed class, and the one over which thegreatest controversy has been generated in the record, is whether the modification of the Applesoftware in order to enable interoperability with independently created computer programs is a
non-infringing use. EFF argues that this activity is non-infringing under Section 117(a) or,
alternatively, under Section 107.
a.

Section 117

Section 117(a) states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement forthe owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize themaking of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in theutilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner, or(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archived copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful.291
In the case of the iPhone, the new copy or adaptation created is the new copy or
modification of Apple’s bootloader and/or operating system in the device. iPhone owners would
need to modify the bootloader and/or operating system in order to run applications of their choice.
The making and use of that new copy or adaptation of the firmware is alleged to be “an essential
step for the utilization of the computer program” that would allow adding new applications to theiPhone.292 The pivotal questions in relation to Section 117(a) turn on: (1) whether the iPhone
purchaser is an owner of a copy of the computer program, or is merely a licensee of a copy, and(2) whether the adaptation is an essential step in the utilization of the program in conjunction with291

17 U.S.C. § 117(a).

292

See T von Lohmann, 5/1/09, at 256.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 87a machine.
EFF argued that the purchaser of an iPhone is the owner of a copy of any computer
program embedded in the hardware. It did not dispute that Apple retains ownership of the
copyright in the “computer programs” for the bootloader, the operating system, or any othercomputer programs created by Apple that reside on the iPhone. In other words, EFF agreed that
Apple owns the “work.” But the particular “copy” of the computer program is bundled with theiPhone hardware. The copy of the software is necessary to make that hardware function, ispurchased as part of the single price of the iPhone, and may be retained perpetually. EFF argued
that regardless of what Apple calls the transaction, the purchaser as a practical matter owns thephone and the copies of the computer programs residing on that hardware.293
Apple’s end-user license agreement states that the user owns the media on which thesoftware resides, but Apple retains ownership of the software. Apple argued that this provisionmeans that a purchaser owns the hardware, but is only licensed to use the software in theprescribed manner.294 Proponents responded that the software is fixed on the hardware. A copy is
the tangible manifestation of the intangible copyrighted work. If the user owns the hardware, theyreason, then the user necessarily also owns the copy of the program.295 Apple may retain
ownership of the intangible work, the software, but does not own the media on which the software
is fixed. EFF asserted that the iPhone Software License Agreement confirms this point.296
Apple contended that the license agreement demonstrates that the owner of an iPhone issimply a licensee of the copy of the computer programs on the phone and that as a licensee,
Section 117(a) is inapplicable. In other words, Apple asserted that a licensee, as distinguishedfrom an owner of a copy, has no right to make a modification of the computer program and isprohibited by the terms of the license from adapting the program. Therefore, any such
unauthorized modification is an infringing derivative work. In Apple’s view, because there is nounderlying non-infringing use established by the proponents, there is no basis for an exemption. If
the underlying use is infringing, the prohibition is not adversely affecting a non-infringing use,
293

C5A (EFF) at 8-9.

294

See Post-Hearing Response of Apple to Copyright Office Questions relating to iPhone modification ofJune 23, 2009, at 3-4.
295

T Carreon, 5/1/09, at 286.

296

C5A (EFF) at 8.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 88

but is simply preventing an infringing use.297
Apple and EFF both provided separate interpretations of the Software License Agreementthat accompanies each sale of an iPhone.298 Not surprisingly, they disagreed as to whether theeffect of that agreement is to vest ownership of the copy of the software in the purchaser of theiPhone or in Apple. The answer does not turn solely on the characterization of the transaction in
the contract. Several courts have held that in addition to assessing formal title, it is also necessary
to look to the incidents of ownership in order to determine whether the transaction is in fact atransfer of ownership or a license. Both Apple and EFF agreed that the recent decision from theSecond Circuit in Krause v. Titleserv299 is “good law.” Each also believed that the case supports
its respective position.300
In Krause, the Second Circuit concluded that rather than looking to formal title as an“absolute prerequisite to qualifying for § 117(a)’s affirmative defense … [i]nstead, courts shouldinquire into whether the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the
program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes of § 117(a). The presenceof formal title may of course be a factor in this inquiry, but the absence of formal title may beoutweighed by evidence that the possessor of the copy enjoys sufficiently broad rights over it to
be sensibly considered its owner.”301
297

See Post-Hearing Response of Apple to Copyright Office Questions relating to iPhone modification ofJuly 13, 2009, at 1-2.
298
Apple has explained that there have been, over time, four different versions of the Agreement. Applehas provided copies of each version. Id. at 17-45.

299

402 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2005). In Krause, the plaintiff was the author and copyright holder of several
computer programs. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Titleserv, a client and user of those computer programs,
infringed his copyright by modifying the source code of the programs. The plaintiff claimed that Titleserv neverowned the program copies saved on defendant’s file server, but rather possessed the copies as a licensee pursuant toan oral agreement. Titleserv countered that it owned the program copies because it had paid the plaintiff a substantial
sum to develop the program, and also had an undisputed right to possess and use the copies permanently. Employeesof Titleserv “subsequently circumvented the ‘lock’ [that the plaintiff, Krause] had placed on the executable code anddecompiled it back to the source code.”300

T Hayes & von Lohmann, 5/1/09, at 326-327.

301

Id. at 124. The court concluded that for purposes of Section 117, Titleserv was the owner of the copyof the software because:
Titleserv paid Krause substantial consideration to develop the programs for its sole benefit.
Krause customized the software to serve Titleserv's operations. The copies were stored on a server
owned by Titleserv. Krause never reserved the right to repossess the copies used by Titleserv andRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 89

The Register notes that with respect to the iPhone Software License Agreement, some of
the considerations that led the Second Circuit to conclude that Titleserv was the owner of copiesof the computer programs in Krause would appear to favor the iPhone purchaser, while otherconsiderations would not. If Krause were the only authority on point, it would still not offer
definitive guidance as to who is the owner of the copy of the software in the iPhone. Moreover,other cases, relied upon by Apple, take an approach that is less generous to the licensee.
Apple relied on Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dep’t,302 for the
proposition that if “severe restrictions” are imposed on the use or transfer of the copy, then thetransaction is a license, not a sale, and the purchaser of the copy is a licensee, not an “owner”
within the meaning of Section 117.303 Unfortunately, the Wall Data court failed to articulate whichparts of the licensing agreement constituted “severe restrictions.”304 The court simply stated that“[g]enerally, if the copyright owner makes it clear that she or he is granting only a license to the
copy of software and imposes significant restrictions on the purchaser’s ability to redistribute or

agreed that Titleserv had the right to continue to possess and use the programs forever, regardlesswhether its relationship with Krause terminated. Titleserv was similarly free to discard or destroy
the copies any time it wished. In our view, the pertinent facts in the aggregate satisfy § 117(a)'s
requirement of ownership of a copy.
302

447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006), cited by Apple in its Post-Hearing Response to Copyright Office
Questions relating to iPhone modification of July 13, 2009, at 3. In Wall Data, the court found that the defendant
Sheriff’s Department was a licensee and not an owner of copies of a computer program. In reaching this conclusion,
the court cited the fact that, as in MAI, the license agreement “imposed severe restrictions on the Sheriff’s
Department’s rights with respect to the software.” See 447 F.3d at 785.
303

The Ninth Circuit found authority for this caveat in MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc., 991 F.2d
511 (9 Cir. 1993).
th304

The only portion of the license agreement quoted by the court provided:
Wall Data ... grants you (“You”), the end user, a non-exclusive license to use theenclosed software program ... on a single Designated Computer for which thesoftware has been activated. A “Designated Computer” is either (I) a stand-alone
workstation, or (ii) a networked workstation which does not permit the Software
to be shared with other networked workstations. You may not use the Softwarein any other multiple computer or multiple user arrangement. You may not use
the Software other than on a Designated Computer, except that You may transfer
the Software to another Designated Computer and reactivate it for use with suchother Designated Computer not more than once every 30 days, provided that the
Software is removed from the Designated Computer from which it is transferred.

447 F.3d at 775, n. 5. In its discussion of Section 117, the court did not specifically refer to that language.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 90transfer that copy, the purchaser is considered a licensee, not an owner, of the software.”305
Apple pointed out that the iPhone Software License Agreement contains restrictions that it
asserts are, under Ninth Circuit law, sufficient to make iPhone users licensees.306 But in light of
the lack of clarity as to what restrictions the Ninth Circuit was referring to in Wall Data, it isunclear whether the restrictions in the iPhone agreement are sufficiently “severe,” in the Ninth
Circuit’s words, to warrant a conclusion based on Wall Data that Apple retains ownership of thecopies of the software. For example, reasonable minds might differ as to what conclusion to draw
from provisions stating that Apple owns the “software” while the purchaser of the iPhone owns
the media. Moreover, a recent case from a district court interpreting Ninth Circuit case law founda conflict in Ninth Circuit cases on the question of ownership of a copy of a work.307
The Register concludes that the law relating to who is the owner of a copy of a computer
program under Section 117 is in flux. In light of this uncertainty, the Register is reluctant to takea firm position on whether a purchaser of an iPhone is, or is not, the owner of the copy of thecomputer programs on the device. Where the law is unclear, the regulatory process (asdistinguished from the legislative process) should be used to resolve difficult issues only as a lastresort, especially when the issue is to a large degree a matter of contract interpretation. It is not
305

Id.

306

Apple characterizes those restrictions as follows:“Specifically, Section 1 of vers.1.0, 1.1.1, and 2.0 of the IPSLA all state, ‘You
own the media on which the iPhone Software is recorded but Apple and/orApple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the iPhone software itself.’ Section 1 ofver. 3.0 of the IPSLA simply states, ‘Apple and its licensors retain ownership of
the iPhone Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.’
Section 3(a) of all versions of the IPSLA further provides that the licensee may
not rent, lease, lend, or sublicense the iPhone Software (versions 2.0 and 3.0 also
prohibit the sale or redistribution of the software), subject to a limited exception
described in the response to question 4 below.”

See Post-Hearing Response of Apple to Copyright Office Questions relating to iPhone modification of July 13, 2009,at 4. The “limited exception” to the restriction on sale or redistribution is a provision permitting the purchaser to“make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the iPhone Software to another party inconnection with the transfer of ownership of your iPhone.” See id. at 11.
307
Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2009 WL 3187613, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90906 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30,2009)(finding a conflict between United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1977) and what the court referred toas the “MAI trio,” consisting of MAI Sys. Corp. v Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993); Triad Sys.
Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995); and Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006)). The ruling in Vernor is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See Vernor v.
Autodesk, No. 09-35969 (9th Cir., appeal docketed Oct. 28, 2009).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 91

necessary to make such a determination here, or delve into the essential step analysis that isrequired under Section 117, because (as discussed below) the Register has concluded that fair use
provides an alternative legal basis for designating a class of works.308 As a result, the Register
declines to base her recommendation on a finding centered on the question of whether“jailbreaking” involves non-infringing activity under Section 117.
b.

Fair use

As an additional basis for finding a non-infringing use that would justify designating the
proposed class, proponents asserted that “even if any reproduction and modification of firmware
incident to jailbreaking were to fall outside the scope of both authorization and § 117(a), it would
nevertheless constitute a non-infringing fair use.”309 The Register agrees that the activity of an
iPhone owner who modifies his or her iPhone’s firmware/operating system in order to make itinteroperable with an application that Apple has not approved, but that the iPhone owner wishes
to run on the iPhone, fits comfortably within the four corners of fair use.
Fair use has traditionally been defined as “a privilege in others than the owner of the
copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without his consent.”310 In
evaluating whether a particular use is being made in such a reasonable manner, it is helpful tolook at the judgments Congress has made as to what kinds of uses of copyrighted material arereasonable and should be considered non-infringing.
In this case, one does not have to look far. In fact, Section 1201 itself offers strong
evidence that the conduct at issue here is conduct that, at the time Congress enacted theprohibition on circumvention, it anticipated and considered to be reasonable and lawful. The
proposed exemption would make it lawful for iPhone users to circumvent technological measuresin the iPhone firmware in order to install and run independently created software applications
designed to run on the iPhone, albeit without Apple’s approval.
In Section 1201(f), Congress provided a statutory exemption that permits circumvention in308

Accord Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596, 600 n.1(9 Cir. 2000) (“Connectix contends that its copying is within the protection of section 117, but our disposition of
the fair use issue makes it unnecessary for us to address that contention”).
th309

C5A (EFF) at 9.

310

Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. at 549.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 92

order to identify and analyze the elements of a computer program that are necessary to achieveinteroperabilitiy of an independently created computer program. The exemption also permits thedevelopment and employment of technological means to circumvent a technological measure inorder to enable such identification and analysis, as well as to enable interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs. Finally, the exemption permits themaking available to others of such information and of the means to circumvent, solely for the
purpose of enabling interoperability of independently created computer programs.
In the legislative history associated with that provision, Congress expressed a commitment
to permit and encourage interoperability between independently created computer programs andexisting programs. Endorsing the holding of Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,311 Congressstated in the legislative history that the purpose of the reverse engineering exemption, an
exemption that it described as permitting “the circumvention of access control technologies forthe sole purpose of achieving software interoperability,” was to “avoid hindering competition andinnovation in the computer and software industry.”312 In enacting Section 1201(f), Congressprovided that one who created a circumvention tool (a “means”) to enable an independently
created computer program to interoperate with a computer program (including a bootloader or an
operating system) would be permitted to provide that circumvention tool to others so that they
may use the tool to enable an independently created computer program to interoperate withanother computer program when such activity is non-infringing. Since Congress determined that
it is lawful to make such tools and provide them to others for such purposes, it is difficult toimagine why Congress would nevertheless have wished to make it unlawful for others to use thetools for the purposes for which they were lawfully provided. 313
A review of the four factors enumerated in Section 107 leads to the conclusion thatmaking minor alterations in the firmware of an iPhone (or any smartphone) in order to permit
311

Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); see also, Sony ComputerEntertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 59; Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1540 (11th Cir.
1996); Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc.350 F.3d 640, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2003).
312

313

House Manager’s Report at 14.

The Register takes no position on the factual question of whether any particular person or entity has
met the statutory requirements of Section 1201(f) for exempted reverse engineering or dissemination of theinformation and means discovered. The point of this discussion is to highlight the fact that Congress specificallyprovided that subject to certain requirements, Congress provided that it would not be a violation of Section
1201(a)(1) to circumvent an access control in order to achieve interoperability between computer programs and that
it would not be a violation of Section 1201(a)(2) or 1201(b) to provide others with the means to enableinteroperability.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 93

independently created software applications to run on the iPhone is a fair use. In making its casethat the first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use isof a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,”314 favors a finding of fair use,
EFF simply states that “[t]he first factor favors fair use because jailbreaking a phone in order touse lawfully obtained computer programs is a purely noncommercial, private use.”315 That isaccurate as far as it goes, but at the very least requires elaboration. The fact that the use isnoncommercial and private does not necessarily make it a fair use, nor does it even mean that thenature and purpose of the use is necessarily favored under the first fair use factor.316 In this case,
it appears fair to say that the purpose and character of the modification of the operating system isto engage in a private, noncommercial use intended to add functionality to a device owned by the
person making the modification, albeit beyond what Apple has determined to be acceptable. The
user is not engaging in any commercial exploitation of the firmware, at least not when the
jailbreaking is done for the user’s own private use of the device, in the situation underconsideration by the Register.
The fact that the person engaging in jailbreaking is doing so in order to use Apple’s
firmware on the device that it was designed to operate, which the jailbreaking user owns, and touse it in precisely the purpose for which it was designed (but for the fact that it has been modified
to run applications not approved by Apple) favors a finding that the purpose and character of theuse is innocuous at worst and beneficial at best. As discussed below,317 Apple’s objections to theinstallation and use of “unapproved” applications appears to have nothing to do with its interests
as the owner of copyrights in the computer programs embodied in the iPhone, and running theunapproved applications has no adverse effect on those interests. Rather, its objections relate toits interests as a manufacturer and distributor of a device, the iPhone.
Moreover, as noted above, Congress has determined that reverse engineering for the
purpose of making computer programs interoperable is desirable when certain conditions are met,
and has crafted a specific exemption from Section 1201(a)’s prohibition on circumvention in suchcases. While an iPhone owner who “jailbreaks” does not fall within the four corners of the314

17 U.S.C. § 107(1).

315

C5A (EFF) at 9.

316

See BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 889-90 (7th Cir. 2005).

317

See discussion of fourth fair use factor, infra.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 94

statutory exemption in Section 1201(f),318 the fact that he or she is engaging in jailbreaking inorder to make the iPhone’s firmware interoperable with an application specially created for theiPhone suggests that the purpose and character of the use are favored.
Further support for that conclusion can be found in case law relating to reverse engineeringand fair use. In Sega, the case the legislative history of Section 1201(f) relied on, the court of appeals
found that the first factor favored a finding of fair use when Accolade reverse engineered object codein a Sega video game console in order to learn how to make its own video games compatible with,and therefore run on, the Sega console. While much of the court’s analysis of the first factor focusedon the fact that Accolade needed “to discover the functional requirements for compatibility” with theSega console in order to create games that were compatible for the console,319 the court concluded that
“Accolade copied Sega's code for a legitimate, essentially non-exploitative purpose, and that thecommercial aspect of its use can best be described as of minimal significance.”320 Similarly, iPhone
users who jailbreak the iPhone firmware in order to install and operate compatible applications do
so for a legitimate, non-exploitative purpose which, as noted above, has no commercial aspects.
The Sega court also expressly considered the “public benefit” from Accolade’s activity, which“has led to an increase in the number of independently designed video game programs offered for use
with the Genesis console.”321 Similarly, the whole point of jailbreaking is to permit the use of
independently designed applications on the iPhone, and the activity of jailbreaking encourages thecreation of such applications.
Whether the use is “transformative” is a more difficult question. The user may be altering
the firmware in a way that creates a derivative work, but such a work is not always, and notcommonly, a transformative work. In this context, questions arise as to whether the alterations to
the firmware are transformative in the sense described by the Supreme Court; that is, do they“adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new
318

The iPhone owner is not the person who has “identif[ied] and analyz[ed] those elements of the
program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with otherprograms.” See Section 1201(f)(1). Rather, the iPhone owner will be the beneficiary of that person’s efforts andwill be using the means provided by that person to install and run the independently created application on his or her
iPhone.
319

See 977 F.2d at 1522.

320

Id. at 1522-23.

321

Id. at 1523.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 95

expression, meaning, or message.”322 The proponents of the exemption make no claim oftransformative use, and in light of the modest nature of the modifications to the Apple firmware,323
it is unlikely that they would be considered transformative. However, a use need not betransformative in order to be a fair use;324 indeed, the language of Section107(1) does not state or
imply that a use must be transformative in order to be fair. Given that the user is simply enablingcompatibility with the smartphone’s operating system so that an independently createdapplication will operate on the user’s device, the proponents appear to have made a good case thatthe nature and purpose of the use is favored.
Apple’s entire analysis of the first fair use factor stated:[A]lthough the use per se of the modified iPhone bootloader and OS on an
individual handset is of a personal nature, it is not a transformative use, andbecause a jailbroken OS is often used to play pirated content, such activity should
be considered of a commercial nature since it avoids paying fees for the content.
Therefore, factor 1 weighs against fair use.325
Thus, Apple admitted that the use is personal; while that in and of itself hardly makes a
use fair, it certainly does not suggest that the use is unfair. Apple’s observation that the use is nottransformative is accurate, but all that means is that one of the favored types of use (albeit anincreasingly important one) is not present here; it hardly disqualifies the use from being fair. The
fact that a jailbroken OS might be used to play pirated content hardly makes the purpose andcharacter of the use in question here, jailbreaking “accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling
interoperability of [software] applications,” a disfavored use, and it certainly doesn’t make that
activity commercial. In short, Apple has not made a persuasive case that the purpose andcharacter of the use militate against a finding of fair use.
As in Sega, the second factor, “the nature of the copyrighted work,”326 is perhaps more
important than usual in cases involving the interoperability of computer programs. First, the322Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. at 579.

323

See R49 (EFF) at 11 (modifications consist of “patched” versions of LLB, iBoot, and operating kernelthat do not perform signature checking).
324

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. at 579.

325

R30 (Apple) at 17.

326

17 U.S.C. § 107(2).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 96

programs are published works. Second, the bootloader and operating system are both highly
functional works used to operate a device.327 As functional works, certain features are dictated byfunction and in order to interoperate with those works certain functional elements of those
programs, elements that in and of themselves may or may not be copyrightable, must be modified.
Even though the works may contain creative elements, there is no evidence in the record thatsuggests that creative elements are copied. The only evidence about the particular nature of thechanges that might be involved indicate that approximately 50 bytes of code need to be alteredout of Apple’s 8 million bytes of code in order to enable interoperable software programs to workon the iPhone.328
Apple’s analysis of the second factor was simply that “the copyrighted works at issue arehighly creative and not factual in nature.”329 But Apple ignored the authority, cited above, that thefunctional nature of computer programs is not a favored “nature of the copyrighted work.” Nordoes it offer any explanation or cite any authority for its assertion that its firmware is “highly
creative.” In fact, the case cited by Apple as blanket authority for the proposition that “Factors 2
and 3 also weigh against fair use because the copyrighted works at issue are highly creative andnot factual in nature, and essentially the entire work is being copied,”330 simply states, “Although
the RUMBA software products are not purely creative works, copyright law nonetheless protects
computer software,”331 hardly an endorsement for the proposition that computer software is“highly creative.”
Looking further at operating systems generally under the second factor, it is customary forthese copyrighted works to enable third party programs to interoperate with them. While a
copyright owner might try to restrict the programs that can be run on a particular operating
system, copyright law is not the vehicle for imposition of such restrictions, and other areas of thelaw, such as antitrust, might apply. It does not and should not infringe any of the exclusive rights
327

See Sega, 977 F.2d at 1524 (noting, that in the context of the second fair use factor, functional andfactual works are not entitled to the same level of protection as other works). See also, Sony v. Connectix, 203 F.3d
at 603.
328

See Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to iPhone modification ofJuly 13, 2009, at 5.
329

R30 (Apple) at 17.

330

Id.

331

Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d at 779-80 (9th Cir. 2006).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 97of the copyright owner332 to run an application program on a computer over the objections of theowner of the copyright in the computer’s operating system. Thus, if Apple sought to restrict thecomputer programs that could be run on its computers, there would be no basis for copyright law
to assist Apple in protecting its restrictive business model. The Register therefore concludes thatthe second factor decisively favors a finding of fair use.
Turning to the third factor, “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole,”333 Apple argued that “essentially the entire work is being
copied,”334 and in one sense, EFF agreed, stating that because the Apple firmware is necessary inorder to operate the iPhone, that “makes it necessary for individuals who jailbreak their phones toreuse the vast majority of the original firmware.” 335 But it is worth noting that according to EFF,
the amount of the copyrighted work modified in a typical jailbreaking scenario is fewer than 50
bytes of code out of more than 8 million bytes, or approximately 1/160,000 of the copyrighted
work as a whole.336 In a case where the alleged infringement consists of the making of anunauthorized derivative work, and the only modifications are as de minimis as they are here, thefact that iPhone users are using almost the entire iPhone firmware for the purpose for which it
was provided to them by Apple undermines the significance of this factor. As EFF has observed,
courts have been willing to permit extensive copying of the original where it is necessary toaccomplish a salutary purpose.337 Thus, while the third factor arguably disfavors a fair use
finding, the weight to be given to it under the circumstances is slight.
Addressing the fourth factor, “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or valueof the copyrighted work,”338 EFF pointed out that the iPhone firmware is not sold separately, but
is simply included when one purchases an iPhone. EFF asserted that this means the firmware has
332

See 17 U.S.C. § 106.

333

17 U.S.C. § 107(3).

334

R30 (Apple) at 17.

335

C5A (EFF) at 10.

336
Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to iPhone modification of July13, 2009, at 5.
337

C5A (EFF) at 10 (citing Sony Corp. of Amer. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S at 417, 449-504(1984); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon. com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1167 (9th Cir. 2007)). See also Bond v. Blum, 317
F.3d 385, 396 (4th Cir. 2003).
338

17 U.S.C. § 107(4).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 98

no independent economic value. EFF also argued that the ability to lawfully jailbreak a phone
will increase, not decrease, overall sales of the phones because users will know that by
jailbreaking, they can “take advantage of a wider array of third party applications.”339
Apple responded that the effect of the unauthorized uses “diminishes the value of the
copyrighted works to Apple.” It does so “by giving rise to a host of problems in the safety,
security and operation of the iPhone, and by substantially increasing Apple’s costs to support thesoftware.” 340 According to Apple, the fact that the firmware is a component of the iPhone mobile
computing product simply means that the value of Apple’s operating system software cannot be
evaluated independently of the iPhone itself and that the value of the software is related to thenumber and quality of applications for the iPhone, as well as the availability of safe and securemeans to distribute those applications to consumers.341
Ultimately, Apple’s position with respect to harm to the market for and value of its
firmware boils down to Apple’s conclusion that “the value of the iPhone, and hence the software
embedded in it, is substantially diminished when the integrity and functionality of that software iscompromised by jailbreaking, when Apple is left to deal with the problems that ensue, and when
the positive feedback loops enabled by the App Store and the iPhone Developer Program arecompromised.”342 The Register concludes that these concerns are not what the fourth fair use
factor is intended to address.
In this instance, Consumer Union of the United States, Inc. v. General Signal Corp,343 is
instructive. In that case, the publisher of Consumer Reports claimed that the defendant’s
quotation in television commercials of favorable Consumer Reports reviews of the defendant’s
product, in violation of Consumer Reports’ policy against the use of its ratings and reports inadvertising, constituted copyright infringement. The Second Circuit concluded that thequotations were fair use. Addressing the fourth factor, the court observed:

339

C5A (EFF) at 9.

340

R30 (Apple) at 18.

341

Id.

342

Id.

343

724 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1983).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 99

The district court accepted CU's argument and stated that “Regina's commercial
use of the article could be the demise of Consumers Union since such commercial
use could lead the public to view Consumers Union as [an] unfair tester of
products.” We believe that this conclusion is based on a faulty premise. The
Copyright Act was not designed to prevent such indirect negative effects ofcopying. The fourth factor is aimed at the copier who attempts to usurp the demand
for the original work. The copyright laws are intended to prevent copiers fromtaking the owner's intellectual property, and are not aimed at recompensing
damages which may flow indirectly from copying. 344
The court concluded that the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s work did not usurp demand
for that work, and determined that the use was a fair use.345
The type of harm alleged by Apple is similar in nature. Apple is not concerned that thepractice of jailbreaking will displace sales of its firmware or of iPhones; indeed, since one cannot
engage in that practice unless one has acquired an iPhone, it would be difficult to make thatargument. Rather, the harm that Apple fears is harm to its reputation. Apple is concerned thatjailbreaking will breach the integrity of the iPhone’s “ecosystem.”346
As Judge Pierre Leval has said,
Not every type of market impairment opposes fair use. An adverse criticism
impairs a book's market. A biography may impair the market for books by the
subject if it exposes him as a fraud, or satisfies the public's interest in that person.
Such market impairments are not relevant to the fair use determination. The fourthfactor disfavors a finding of fair use only when the market is impaired because thequoted material serves the consumer as a substitute, or, in Story's words

344

Id. at 1050 (citations omitted).

345

Id. at 1051. See also Association of American Medical Colleges v. Cuomo, 928 F.2d 519, 526 (2d Cir.
1991) (rejecting claim of purported harm that stems from “a non-commercial, non-competing use”).
346

See R30 (Apple) at 18. What actually appears to be the case is that iPhone owners who elect tojailbreak, contrary to Apple’s policy, may end up regretting that decision if the consequences about which Apple
warns take place. But those who elect to engage in such activity have themselves, and not Apple, to blame, andthere is no reason to conclude that Apple will suffer reputational harm based upon conduct of users who haveengaged in activity that is contrary to Apple’s well-known policies. In any event, as noted above, such reputationalharm is not the kind of harm that is relevant to the fourth factor.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 100“supersede[s] the use of the original.” Only to that extent are the purposes of
copyright implicated.347
The ultimate determination of whether a use is fair involves more than tabulating theresults of the four-factor analysis, but it is nevertheless telling when three of the four factors tip
decisively in favor of a finding of fair use. On balance, the Register concludes that when one“jailbreaks” a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable withan independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphoneor the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose ofsuch interoperability are likely to be fair uses.348 Case law and Congressional enactments reflect a
judgment that interoperability is favored.
Having established that a technological measure that controls access is at issue and thatthe use for which circumvention is sought is a non-infringing use, it is necessary to turn to thequestion whether the prohibition is adversely affecting that non-infringing use. The Joint Creators
argued that since no allegations of lawsuits have been brought by the proponents, the apparent
lack of threats or actions indicates that the prohibition is not adversely affecting non-infringing
uses. To some extent, the suggestion in the record that approximately 350,000 or more iPhones
have been jailbroken in the United States might be construed as supporting this proposition.349
However, there is nothing in the statute or the legislative history that suggests that adverse effects
on non-infringing uses must be premised on actual enforcement of the prohibition. Moreover, thefact that Apple has testified in this proceeding to object to any exemption and to assert thatjailbreaking violates the prohibition undermines the Joint Creators' argument and demonstrates
that those who engage in jailbreaking are, at best, doing so under a legal cloud. The evidence
demonstrates that the prohibition in Section 1201(a)(1)(A) could reasonably serve as the basis fora legal action substantially affecting non-infringing uses, and therefore is sufficient to establishthat the prohibition is, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on non-infringing uses.

347

P. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv.L.Rev. 1105, 1125 (1990)(footnotes omitted).

348

Because fair use involves a case-by-case analysis, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569,
577(1994), the Register refrains from concluding that such activity will invariably constitute fair use. However, atypical case involving such a fact pattern is likely to result in a finding of fair use.
349

C11A (EFF) at 5, citing http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/10/the-story-behind-cydia-on-theiphone.ars. (Last visited 4/30/10.) (noting that Cydia allows users of jailbroken phones to download and install appsthat were not approved by Apple and are not available in the Apple App Store. Cydia’s creator stated that the method
the site uses to track unique iPhone identifiers has identified 350,000 unique users, but since this identification
system is new, the number of jailbroken iPhone owners that use the site is believed to be higher.)Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

3.

June 11, 2010

Page 101

Application of statutory factors

Having concluded that the prohibition on circumvention does have an adverse effect on
non-infringing uses in such cases, the Register now turns to the statutory factors that must be
considered by the Librarian of Congress.
Factor One.
Apple has created a system of customizable applications on wireless communication
handsets that has made it possible for the public to use a wide variety of independently createdcomputer programs on the iPhone. Despite the enormous choices available to consumers, therecord reveals that restrictions that do not implicate copyright interests are placed on
independently created interoperable computer programs. Thus the existing market creates legal
barriers for the use of copyrighted works. An exemption would encourage the availability ofadditional applications for use on smartphones. At the same time, there is no reason to believethat an exemption would discourage smartphone manufacturers and those who create theoperating systems for those smartphones from continuing to do so. The iPhone is a huge successin the marketplace even though jailbreaking is a common practice.
Exempting the proposed class of works will likely increase the availability of
independently created computer applications for smartphones, while simultaneously being
unlikely to interfere with the availability of smartphone operating systems or other works
currently being used or created for wireless communications devices.
This factor favors exempting the proposed class.

Factor Two
The recommended exemption will be unlikely to affect the availability of works for these
purposes in any way. This factor appears to be neutral.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 102

Factor Three
Like the previous factor, the recommendation is unlikely to affect the interests in thisfactor. This factor also appears to be neutral.
Factor Four
There is no reason to believe that the proposed exemption would adversely affect thevalue of the copyrighted firmware that is the class of works directly affected by the exemption. If
any effect on the market for, or value of, such works can be expected, it is quite possible that theexemption could increase the market for or value of such works, since the availability ofadditional applications to be used on smartphones may well make them more attractive toconsumers.
Although there has been speculation that an exemption might expose copyrighted content
that is protected by access controls on wireless handsets to unlawful copying and distribution, no
factual basis for such speculation has been presented.350 Moreover, the proposed exemption is
tailored to permit circumvention only to permit circumvention to enable wireless telephonehandsets to execute lawfully obtained software applications.
To the extent that unlawfully obtained applications are made interoperable with wirelesscommunication devices, circumvention in order to make telephone handsets execute those
applications will remain actionable under the prohibition notwithstanding the exemption.
4.

NTIA Comments

The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department ofCommerce does not support designation of the proposed class. NTIA acknowledged thatexempting iPhone jailbreaking could facilitate innovation, better serve customers, and encourage
the market to utilize open platforms, but it believes “it might just as likely deter innovation by notallowing the developer to recoup its development costs and to be rewarded for its innovation.”351
NTIA also believes that the proponents’ “public policy” arguments should properly be consideredby expert regulatory agencies, the Department of Justice, and the Congress. However, NTIA
350

See R46 (Joint Creators) at 38.

351

NTIA Letter at 9.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 103

qualifies that view by stating that the “Register ought only to consider recommending the
proposed exemption if she concludes that the access control measure would be a bar to actions
that the above bodies might take in response to policy judgments made at those agencies.”352
NTIA also expresses concern about the effect of an exemption on contractual agreements andhow these agreements might alter the underlying nature of the use.353
The Register appreciates that other administrative agencies also have jurisdiction on
potential issues relating to the iPhone, smartphones, and other mobile phone and data services.
However, the focus in this rulemaking is limited to actual or likely adverse effects on noninfringing uses of copyrighted works. No other agency has delegated authority to temporarily
limit the application of the prohibition on circumvention. This prohibition was established toprovide legal support for, and foster the availability of, copyrighted works in the digital
environment. The Register has found that the prohibition is adversely affecting the ability toengage in the non-infringing use of adding unapproved, independently created computer
programs to their smartphones. The Register also finds that designation of this class will notadversely affect the market for or value of the copyrighted works to the copyright owner.
If the Librarian does not designate the proposed class, Section 1201 may be used toprevent jailbreaking. Any action by a federal regulatory agency to permit jailbreaking will be
futile if jailbreaking violates Section 1201(a)(1), and outside of this rulemaking, no federal
agency has the authority to exempt such activity from liability under Section 1201(a)(1). On theother hand, if the proposed class of works is designated by the Librarian, all that it will mean isthat Section 1201 cannot be used to prevent jailbreaking, without prejudice to any other legal or
regulatory authority that might limit or prohibit jailbreaking. In fact, as NTIA notes, state contract
law is also at issue in the relationship between purchasers of smartphones and manufacturers
and/or service providers. Nothing in this rulemaking will alter the contractual obligations between
parties. Therefore, the Register finds that designating the proposed class of works will remedy theadverse effects on non-infringing uses caused by the prohibition on circumvention without
interfering with other policy, legal, or regulatory concerns appropriately addressed by othergovernmental bodies or between the parties to the transaction themselves.
NTIA also stated that it “views this proposed exemption as somewhat analogous to theplatform shifting proposals rejected previously by the Librarian. As in those cases, an exemption
352

Id. at 9-10.

353

Id. at 10-11.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 104

is not warranted that will guarantee the device owner the ability to use any software on any andall platforms.”354 However, the platform-shifting proposals referred to by NTIA related totechnological measures that were applied, by or on behalf of copyright owners, to tether copies ofaudiovisual and musical works to particular devices in order to prevent illegal digital distribution.
In recommending against an exemption to permit such platform-shifting, the Register observed,“tethering and DRM policies serve a legitimate purpose for limiting access to certain devices inorder to protect the copyright owners from digital redistribution of works” and that the “effect of
circumvention of the protection measures employed on these works would be likely to decrease
the digital offerings for these classes of works, reduce the options for users, and decrease thevalue of these works for copyright owners.”355 That does not appear to be the case where access
controls are placed on a device in order to prevent software applications written by third parties torun on that device. Here, the user wants to use a particular computer program on a device forwhich that computer program was specifically created. It is the creator of the device who istrying to prevent the running of that computer program on the device. The access control does notreally appear to be protecting any copyright interest.
5.

New Class of Works

Accordingly, the Register recommends the following exemption:
Computer programs that enable wireless communication handsets to execute
software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purposeof enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully
obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
This is the language suggested by the proponent, with one change. The proponent had
proposed the following class:Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute lawfully
obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole
purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programson the telephone handset. (Emphasis added).

354

NTIA Letter at 10 (citing 2006 Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. at 68,478).

355

2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 71-72.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 105

The notion clearly was that the exemption would apply only in cases where the software
application that is being made interoperable with the telephone handset’s firmware and/or
operating system must have been lawfully obtained. Since the computer programs themselves
will enable execution of an application whether or not the application has been lawfully obtained,
the restriction more properly belongs in the description of circumstances under which thepermitted circumvention will occur. The recommended class applies only when thecircumvention is accomplished to enable interoperability of lawfully obtained applications withthe computer program (e.g., the operating system) that is protected by access controls.
C.

Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable usedwireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications
network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of thecomputer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications
network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the
network.
1.

The 2006 class of works

In the 2006 rulemaking, the Wireless Alliance and Robert Pinkerton proposed a class ofworks consisting of computer programs that operate wireless communications handsets. The
proponents stated that providers of mobile telecommunications networks were using various typesof software locks in order to control customer access to the “bootloader” programs on mobile
phones and the operating system programs embedded inside mobile handsets. According to therecord established three years ago, these software locks prevented customers from using theirhandsets on an alternative wireless network by controlling access to the firmware that operates
the mobile phones (i.e., the mobile firmware).356
At that time, the Register concluded that consumers who wanted to use their mobile
phones on a different wireless network were often precluded from doing so unless they could
obtain access to the bootloader or operating system within the phone in order to direct the device
to a different carrier’s network. The record evidence then demonstrated that most wirelessproviders did not allow a consumer to obtain such access in order to switch a mobile phone from
one network to another, and that the consumer could not use the mobile phone elsewhere, evenafter fulfilling her contractual obligations with the carrier that sold the device. The Register found356

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 48.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 106

that, in order to switch carriers, the consumer had to purchase a new phone from a competing
wireless carrier.357
The Register specifically concluded that the software locks were access controls thatadversely affected the ability of consumers to make non-infringing use of the software on theirmobile phones. She noted that there had been no argument or suggestion that a consumer wishingto switch a lawfully purchased mobile handset from one network carrier to another is engaging in
copyright infringement or in an activity that in any way implicates copyright infringement or theinterests of the copyright owner. The underlying activity sought to be performed by the owner ofthe handset is to allow the handset to do what it was manufactured to do – lawfully connect to acarrier. She concluded that this is a non-infringing activity by the user.
A review of the factors enumerated in Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(i)–(iv) supported theconclusion that an exemption was warranted at that time. First, there was nothing in the recordsuggesting that the availability for use of copyrighted works would be adversely affected bypermitting an exemption for mobile phone locks. Second, there was no reason to conclude that
there would be any impact (positive or negative) on the availability for use of works for nonprofit
archival, preservation, and educational purposes or on the ability to engage in criticism, comment,news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Third, circumvention of the locks to connect toalternative wireless networks was not likely to have any effect on the market for, or value of,copyrighted works. The Register stated that the reason that the factors appeared to be neutral wasthat the access controls did not appear to be deployed in order to protect the interests of the
copyright owner or the value or integrity of the copyrighted work; rather, they were used bywireless carriers to limit the ability of subscribers to switch to alternative wireless networks, abusiness decision unrelated to copyright protection.
This outcome required an examination of the additional factor set forth in Section
1201(a)(1)(C)(v): “such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.” The Registerconcluded that when application of the prohibition on circumvention of access controls would
offer no apparent benefit to the author or copyright owner in relation to the work to which access
was controlled, but simply offered a benefit to a third party who may use Section 1201 to control
the use of hardware which may be operated in part through the use of computer software or
firmware, an exemption from the prohibition on circumvention may well be warranted. The

357

Id. at 49.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 107

Register concluded that such appeared to be the case with respect to software locks on wirelesshandsets.358
The Register acknowledged that copyright owners (of music, sound recordings andaudiovisual works whose works are offered for downloading onto mobile phones) expressed someconcern about the proposal. She noted their stated concerns that designation of the class might
permit circumvention of access controls that protect their works when those works have been
downloaded onto mobile phones. She found that the record on this issue was inconclusive, butnevertheless took this concern into account by fashioning a class in a way that permitted mobile
phone unlocking, but at the same time, avoided unintended consequences related to other types of
copyrighted works contained on the handset.
Because the Register stated that, in appropriate circumstances, a class of works may be
refined by reference to uses made of the works, she concluded that the matter may be best
resolved by modifying the proposed class of works. As such, the Register recommended approvalof the following class of works in 2006:“Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephonehandsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, whencircumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to awireless telephone communication network.”
2.

Background

The issues discussed herein are particularly complicated because of the mobile phone
technologies at issue and the business models used in the wireless industry. Therefore, it isuseful to provide a brief overview of several key terms and concepts used throughout thediscussion.
•

This class of works here pertains to mobile phones (or “cellphones” as they may becalled)359 as well as so-called “smartphones,” such as the iPhone.360

358

Id. at 52.

359

According to the CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA), the trade association representing wirelesscarriers and their suppliers, as well as providers and manufacturers of wireless data services and products, more than
630 devices were manufactured for the wireless market last year. See CTIA comments filed in FCC WT Docket No.
09-66 (filed Sept. 30, 2009).
360

For a discussion of smartphones, see the discussion supra at p. 78.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 108•

The computer programs that are the subject of the proposed class are embedded in themobile phone’s firmware.361•

There are several different wireless carriers in the United States, the four largest ofwhich are Verizon Wireless, AT&T Mobility, Sprint-Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
There are also several smaller wireless telecommunications companies, such as
MetroPCS362 and Pocket Communications,363 as well as mobile virtual network
operators (“MVNOs”),364 such as Virgin Mobile.365•

Wireless carriers use different transmission technologies on different wirelessnetworks. Verizon and Sprint, for example, use Code Division Multiple Access(“CDMA”) technology. AT&T and T-Mobile use Global System for Mobile
communications (“GSM”) technology.366 These technological standards areincompatible so, for example, a consumer cannot use a CDMA phone on a GSM
network.367
361

For a definition of “firmware,” see the discussion supra at p. 79.

362

C5B (MetroPCS) at 2. MetroPCS, one of the proponents of an exemption here, stated that it is a newwireless carrier focusing on low cost, flat rate services in major metropolitan areas. Through its affiliates andsubsidiaries, it noted that it owns or has access to wireless licenses covering a population of approximately 149
million people in 14 of the top 25 largest metropolitan areas in the United States.
363
C5C (Pocket) at 2-4. Pocket Communications, another proponent of an exemption targeting mobile
phones, stated that it is a regional wireless carrier providing prepaid, flat rate, unlimited use voice and data services
over its south Texas communication networks.
364

An MVNO is a company that buys network capacity from a wireless carrier in order to offer its own
branded mobile subscriptions and value-added services to customers. See CTIA Wireless Glossary of Terms,
http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/AID/10408. (Last visited 4/30/10.)
365

Virgin Mobile, one of the opponents of the proposed mobile phone exemption, stated in the record that
it is one of the ten largest wireless service providers in the United States. Its wireless service is operated onnationwide network facilities provided by Sprint Nextel. R 51 (Virgin Mobile) at 4. Sprint Nextel acquired Virgin
Mobile at the end of 2009. See Press Release, Sprint Nextel Completes Acquisition of Virgin Mobile USA(November 24, 2009). Sprint stated that customers using Virgin Mobile’s products will “continue to enjoy thebenefits of their current phones, service plans and features.” See id.
366Aside from CDMA and GSM, there are two older, lesser used, mobile phone technologies. First, there
is Time Division Multiple Access or “TDMA.” This technological standard permits the transmission of information
by dividing calls into time slots, each one lasting only a fraction of a second. AT&T, along with Cingular (now partof AT&T), have used this technology in the past. Then, there is the Integrated Digital Enhanced Network (“iDEN”)
standard. This specialized mobile technology combines two-way radio, telephone, text messaging and datatransmission into one digital network. It was primarily used by Nextel Communications before its merger withSprint. Other smaller wireless carriers, such as AirTel Montana and Southern LINC Wireless, have used it as well.
See CTIA Wireless Glossary of Terms, http://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index.cfm/. (Last visited 4/30/10.)
367

See T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 126 (A Virgin Mobile phone could be used on Sprint’s network, but it could
not be used on AT&T’s network). It is possible, however, for a consumer with a GSM phone to swap out anexisting SIM card (for use with a wireless network in the United States) with another SIM card so that the samephone can be used on wireless networks in most European countries. T Granick, 5/1/09, at 194.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 109•

There are two competing business/marketing models in the wireless industry. There is
the “postpaid” plan where a consumer signs a long term service contract with awireless carrier at the time the phone is purchased and is obligated to pay for service
after use. If the consumer wishes to terminate service earlier than the end of thecontract term, she may be required to pay an early termination fee. The other model isknown as the “prepaid” plan where a consumer pays for service in advance of use andis not required to sign a long term contract at the time of purchase, but nonethelessmay be bound by other specified terms of use. There are generally no earlytermination fees under this type of arrangement.

•

The wireless carrier often subsidizes the cost of the phone to make it more affordable
for the consumer. Subsidies exist in both the prepaid and the postpaid markets. There
are unsubsidized phones available for purchase in the marketplace, but they are in theminority compared to the number of subsidized devices. There is also an after market
for used phones through commercial resellers or through online marketplaces, such as
eBay.

•

Current mobile phones typically include two operating systems inside the samedevice: a “baseband system,” which controls the mobile phone’s radio andcommunications with the mobile phone network, and a separate “host system” thatmanages user applications. The baseband and host systems generally have their own
separate CPUs, memory, and operating systems. Changes made to either system need
not affect the other because the baseband and host systems are distinct. Carrier locks,
when present, are normally implemented by the baseband system, whereas application
locks and related restrictions are normally implemented by the host system.368•

In order to retain customers, and recoup the costs of the subsidy, wireless carriers have
implemented different types of carrier locks on the phones they sell to consumers.
The lock prevents a mobile phone owner from accessing and instructing the firmwarethat directs the phone to connect to a particular network. The most commonly
recognized locking measures are:•Service provider code locking (“SPC”). The SPC code is often a six digit
number derived from an algorithm that uses the handset’s electronic serial
number (“ESN”). The carriers provide the algorithm to the phone
manufacturers who input the ESN and use the resulting number to set an accesscode on new handsets. An SPC-locked mobile phone cannot be reprogrammed
to operate on a wireless network unless the programmer first inputs the correct
SPC code.369 Sprint and Verizon both employ SPC locks on their mobile
phones.

368

R 49 (EFF) Appendix A at 9.

369

C5D (Wireless Allliance) at 8.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 110•

Master Subscriber Lock (“MS”). The MS lock protects a number of functions
on the handset. It prevents the phone from being unlocked and used on anothernetwork. It also prevents access to the “embedded file system,” where address
books, calendars, and other mobile phone utilities are located. MS locks are
currently being used by Virgin Mobile.370•

Subscriber identity module locking (“SIM”). This type of locking involves a
SIM card which is a small device that stores a customer’s identifying
information on GSM handsets. The card is easily removed and replaced. A
customer with a SIM card phone can select service providers by inserting theappropriate card in the handset. The network reads the card, allows theconnection, and then collects accurate billing information. With a lock in place,a different SIM card cannot be inserted into the handset.371 AT&T and TMobile program their handsets with SIM locks which prevent a consumer fromaccessing the phone’s firmware.

•

System operator code locking (“SOC”). The SOC is a number assigned to awireless carrier.372 The code programmed into the mobile phone must match thecode of the carrier providing service to the phone. When the handsets arelocked, the SOC code cannot be changed, so the phone cannot be
reprogrammed for use on a different network.373 AT&T and Cingular (now
AT&T Wireless) have used SOC locks in the past.374•

Band order locking (“BO”). BO locking restricts the frequencies on which
mobile phones will operate. While mobile phones are generally capable ofoperating across the entire range of frequencies allocated by the FCC formobile communications, each carrier is licensed to operate only on certain
blocks within those bands. By restricting the blocks on which the handset can

370

T Buerger, 5/1/09, at 133-134. Virgin Mobile stated that its MS lock is unique to each handset and isgenerated using proprietary algorithms embodied in software. R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 10.
371

Id. at 9.

372

SOC locks are associated with TDMA phones. R36 (Cricket) at 6.

373

Id.

374

Apart from a cursory review by the proponents, SOC or BO locking were not discussed in any detailin the current proceeding. It is worth noting, however, that SOC locks have, at least in the past, been embedded in
the mobile phones sold by TracFone. “(There are two “software locks” employed in the TracFone handset, one tolimit access to the TracFone software resident on the handset, and the other to prevent access to the operating
system. The latter is akin to what has been referred to as the ‘system operator code’ (SOC) lock that prevents third
parties from reprogramming the handset. On TracFone’s handset, there is no specific software lock that only controls
access to the carrier’s wireless network.”) See Petition for Consideration and Entry of Reply Comments of TracFone
Wireless, Inc. in Docket No. RM 2005-11, at 4 (2006 anticircumvention proceeding).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 111

operate, the carrier prevents the handset from being used on a different
network.375•

As illustrated above, different wireless carriers use different locking measures on
different phones on different networks. These locks control access to the firmware andare considered technological protection measures or “TPMs.”•

These phones may be unlocked by the consumer, the wireless carrier, or by other third
parties. The type of unlocking measure used depends on the phone and the wirelessnetwork on which it is used.376•

There are a variety of reported methods for unlocking CDMA phones with SPC locks.
If a consumer knows the unlock code, then she simply calls up a series of prompt
screens (directing the user to the phone’s data registry) on the device and enters thecorrect number. Another way is to use a computer-based tool to read the data on thedevice, clear the existing SPC value, and/or reset it to zeros.377 In the process, thepreferred roaming list (“PRL”)378 and number assignment module (“NAM”)379 may bereconfigured and updated so that the phone can be used on a new wireless network.380•

Mobile phones, including CDMA phones, may also be unlocked by being“reflashed.”381 Firmware, of the kind found in a mobile phone, is designed to bechanged or upgraded. In this context, when a phone is reflashed, the firmware andlocking code are wiped out thereby freeing the device to be used on another wirelessnetwork. There are also more intelligent forms of reflashing that only eliminate the375

C5D (Wireless Alliance) at 8-9.

376

Specific methods to unlock mobile phones using SOC locks and BO locks were not raised in thecurrent record. In a comment in the proceeding three years ago that was not considered due to its untimely
submission, CTIA stated that SOC locks have been seldom used by wireless carriers to lock mobile phones. It also
stated that BO locking was not commonly used by major wireless carriers in the United States. See CTIA,
Complementing Response to the Copyright Office’s Request of August 14, 2006, for Further Information in Docket
No. RM 2005-11, at 2 (Sept. 11, 2006). These may be the reasons why there is a lack of information in the current
record on how to unlock phones with these locks. Given this circumstance, the focus of the discussion here will be
on SPC, MS, and SIM unlocking.
377

T Granick, 5/1/09, at 146-47.

378

The preferred roaming list is a list of system identification codes of networks with which the carrier
providing the service has agreements to allow the handset to be used. Each carrier has a different preferred roaming
list based on its own networks and contractual agreements it has with third parties. This list is routinely changed bycarriers as they establish or change relationships with third parties for roaming service. Essentially, the PRL tells
your phone which towers to look for when establishing a wireless connection. See C5B (MetroPCS) at 7.
379

The NAM contains files that store a device's phone number, the electronic serial number, and otherfirmware settings in non-volatile memory.
380

R25 (Han) at 3.

381

See the discussion infra, at fn. 391 and pp. 119 and 123, for additional information about “reflashing.”

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 112

carrier locks, but preserve content, such as calendar information and address books, on
the phone.
•Some phones with a MS lock may need to be unlocked and then reflashed in order forthe device to be used on another wireless network. Once unlocked, the firmware may
be reflashed via a serial port on the handset, manually changed via keypad, or changed
via over-the-air communication.382 This is the case for Virgin Mobile’s phones.

•

In general terms, GSM phones with SIM cards can be unlocked by inputting thecorrect sequence of digits. An example of unlock code for a GSM handset is:38123134.383•

Some GSM phones, such as the iPhone, are more complicated to unlock. As discussed
in more detail below, the methods used to unlock these devices may result in thecreation of a derivative work if there is an unauthorized “adaptation” of the firmware
embedded on the phone.

3.

The 2009 Proposed Classes of Works

In the current rulemaking proceeding, the Register has received three new proposals
relating to computer programs that operate wireless communications handsets. Two of the
proposals were from commercial mobile phone service providers384 and one was from a coalitionof mobile phone recyclers/resellers.385 The language of the proposed classes is as follows:
Class of Works 5B (filed by MetroPCS):
382

R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 12.

383

R25 (Han) at 3.

384

In mid-2008, MetroPCS launched its “MetroFLASH” commercial unlocking service. Here, a customer
brings her compatible CDMA handset into a MetroPCS location and, after paying a fee to unlock the phone, it isreflashed and placed in service on MetroPCS’s network. See C5B (MetroPCS) at 6. Pocket also offers acommercial unlocking service, but uses the term “reprovisioning” for the action of unlocking a mobile phone.
According to Pocket’s website, “Reprovisioning a phone is a process wherein a mobile phone's program inside yourphone's memory is updated or re-programmed with software updates. It actually removes the current service provider
by clearing the SPC (Service Programming Code) and the PRL (Preferred Roaming List) on a mobile phone andmake it compatible with a different service provider such as Pocket. Reprovisioning is only available in selectedmarkets.” See http://www.pocket.com/index.php/faq/6. (Last visited 4/30/10.) Pocket indicates that voice mailmessages are the only type of “information” currently stored on the phone that may be lost when a phone is“reprovisioned.” Id.
385

proceeding.

MetroPCS and Pocket did not file exemption requests in the 2006 Section 1201 rulemaking

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 113

Computer programs that operate wireless telecommunications handsets whencircumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling wirelesstelephones to connect to a wireless telephone communication network.
Class of Works 5C (filed by Pocket):"Mobile Network Connection Programs.” Computer programs in the form of
firmware or software that enable mobile communication handsets to connect to awireless communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole
purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless communication network.
Class of Works 5D (filed by the Wireless Alliance386/ReCellular387/Flipswap388 (collectively
referred to herein as “Wireless Alliance”)):
Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephonehandsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, whencircumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to awireless telephone communication network, regardless of commercial motive.
As is evident from the wording, these proposed classes closely track the class designatedby the Librarian in 2006. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (“CTIA”) and
Virgin Mobile opposed these requests on several grounds. The proponents of the original three
requests then collaborated and filed responsive comments proposing a new “Harmonized Class ofWorks” for the Register to evaluate. An in-depth discussion of the wording of the proposedclasses follows the analysis of the threshold issues raised and addressed directly below.
a.

The Burden of Showing an Adverse Effect on NonInfringing Uses

MetroPCS, Pocket, and the Wireless Alliance have each stated, in various terms, thatwireless carriers have the technological ability to prevent individuals from using their own mobile
phones on more than one wireless network. They stated that carriers have establishedtechnological protection mechanisms which lock a mobile phone to a particular wireless network.

386

C5D (Wireless Alliance) at 4-9. The Wireless Alliance stated that it is a corporation that recycles andresells used and refurbished wireless products. The Wireless Alliance further stated that it repurposes used phones
and recycles those that cannot be reused.
387

ReCellular stated that it is the world's largest recycler and reseller of used wireless phones andaccessories. It further stated that it has partnered with the mobile phone industry’s Wireless Foundation on theoriginal “Donate a Phone” charitable recycling program.
388

Flipswap stated that it is a mobile phone recycler. It further stated that its trade-in program allows
consumers to reuse their phones by putting them back into the secondary market and offers cash, gift certificates, orstore credit to consumers for their trade-in devices.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 114

They specifically stated that wireless providers handcuff mobile phones to their networks using avariety of methods, including SPC locking, SOC locking, BO locking, and SIM locking.389 They
explained that these locks prevent a mobile phone consumer from accessing and instructing thefirmware that directs the phone to connect to a particular network. They asserted that these locks
adversely affect non-infringing uses, in this case, the ability of a consumer to use a wirelessnetwork of her own choice. They each sought the ability to use different methods to legallyunlock mobile phones, such as recoding390 or reflashing,391 so that the consumer is free to use her
device on an alternative wireless network. The proponents urged that the existing class of works
be redesignated, with certain changes, so that consumers can legally circumvent the TPMs using
any of a number of unlocking methods.
CTIA argued that the proponents have failed to meet their burden of proving the need forany exemption. It stated that there is a presumption in favor of the prohibition against
circumvention that proponents in the rulemaking must overcome, even for previously designatedclasses of works. It emphasized that the assessment of adverse impacts on particular categories ofworks is to be determined de novo. It asserted that the 2006 determination regarding mobile
phone unlocking firmware cannot be used to support continuation of that exemption now as
proponents attempt to do by characterizing their proposals as a “renewal” or a “continuation” ofthe exemption. It concluded that the presumption of prohibition remains and the burden of proof
must be met anew with new evidence for each category of works.392
Further, CTIA addressed the sufficiency of the proponents’ evidence. It remarked thatisolated or anecdotal evidence is not sufficient, nor is evidence of convenience or efficiency. It
389

According to EFF, SPC locking is the most common kind of lock for CDMA phones. SIM locking is
the most common type of lock for GSM phones. The SIM lock only controls whether the handset will accept a SIM
card from another carrier; TPMs on content are always separate on these phones. Post-Hearing Response of EFF to
Copyright Office Questions Relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009, at 8.
390

T Granick, 5/1/09, at 146.

391

As noted earlier, there are two reported methods of reflashing: one method completely wipes out thebinary code on the memory chip so that the mobile phone’s locking program and related content is wiped out. The
other method has the effect of unlocking the device, but maintains certain types of content on an embedded file sothat, for example, purchased ringtones are not eradicated. See T Buerger, 5/1/09, at 177. (“MR. CARSON: Can I
follow up, then? Because one thing wasn't clear to me. I heard one statement that reflashing gets rid of the software;is that right? MR. BUERGER: Not necessarily. So, there are two methods for a binary reflash: One that willcompletely wipe out all of the binary -- the code binary on the memory. There are also reflashing methods that
actually keep the content in the embedded file. So, if you bought a game before or a ring tone before, you canreflash it with a new binary and keep the old ring tones that you bought..”)392

R43 (CTIA) at 9-10.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 115

added that evidence must be more than rhetoric, more than good policy, and more thanconjecture. It argued that none of the proponents attempted to show that they have actually been
harmed by the prohibition on circumvention, nor have any of the proponents “shown actual harmby the differences between the current exemption and the expansions that they seek.” In theabsence of any proof of actual harm, it stressed that the proponents must instead demonstrate that
harm is “likely” to occur in the next three years. It noted that, in the past, proposed classes havebeen rejected for the very reason that there was no firm evidence to show that the predictedconsequences would actually ensue. CTIA asserted that none of the proponents have adequately
demonstrated the requisite “likely” adverse impact on non-infringing uses sufficient to justify
their requests.393
Discussion. At the outset, it appears obvious that the three proposed classes outlined
above are very similar to the class of works recommended to the Librarian for approval in 2006.
Further, the underlying facts supporting the requests are generally the same as they were three
years ago. While a proponent of a class of works is required to provide new evidence to support
her request for the renewal of a class of works, such as in the case here, the Register’s priordeterminations have some precedential value and, unless persuaded otherwise, the Register islikely to reach a similar conclusion when similar facts have been presented.
On the other hand, the similar class that was designated three years ago was unopposed394.
In contrast, this year’s proposals on this topic were hotly contested, and the opponents offeredserious objections, which are considered below.
As she did three years ago, the Register recognizes that the proponents’ requests fallwithin the zone of interest subject to this rulemaking. That is, circumventing a mobile phone lock,without the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the protected work (i.e., thefirmware) is likely actionable under Section 1201(a)(1) of the Act. Further, a wireless carrier that393
Id. at 13. Virgin Mobile also opposed the requests on the grounds that proponents have not met theirevidentiary burden. It specifically argued that proponents have failed to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that a
non-infringing use is likely to be adversely affected by the prohibition in the ensuing three years, and instead, have
put forth various conclusory statements with little factual support. It asserted that proponents have not provided any
concrete evidence demonstrating that there are likely adverse effects of the Section 1201(a) prohibition on
circumvention that outweigh the risks to the legitimate interests of its own business and that of other wireless service
providers. R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 14-15.
394

CTIA and TracFone, a wireless carrier, did make belated attempts to oppose the mobile phone
exemption in 2006, but their untimely submissions were not considered. See 2006 Recommendation of the Registerof Copyrights at 48.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 116is harmed by the circumvention of the software lock may bring an action for violation of Section
1201(a)(1) against anyone who circumvents such a technological protection measure.395
In this instance, as discussed in greater detail below, the Register finds that the proponents
have presented a prima facie case that the prohibition on circumvention has had an adverse effecton non-infringing uses of firmware on wireless telephone handsets. The proponents had to provethat the access controls at issue, the mobile phone locks, adversely affected non-infringing uses.
Here, they have shown that such locks prevent consumers from legally accessing alternative
wireless networks with the phone of their choice. This is the same type of activity that was at
issue when the existing class was being considered in 2006.396
The Register finds that there is more evidence in support of designating a class of works
now than there was in 2006 when the class was first approved by the Librarian.397 The material
submitted in this rulemaking shows that the locks have a substantial adverse affect on the use of
the handset. Specifically, if a consumer wishes to switch wireless providers, but keep her phone,
she would have to engage in a circumventing activity. This situation would actually exist today,
but for the designation of the class of works in the current regulations, and is likely to occur in thenext three years unless a similar class is designated.
In determining whether the prohibition on circumvention of access controls is having anadverse effect on noninfringing uses in connection with mobile phones, the principal issue iswhether the copyrights in the computer programs that operate mobile phones are infringed when
the owner of a mobile phone switches to a new wireless network. The infringement might consistof the making of random access memory (“RAM”) copies of the mobile phone’s firmware –395

See id. at 51 (citing similar language).

396

See id. at 50. (“The underlying activity sought to be performed by the owner of the handset is to allow
the handset to do what it was manufactured to do – lawfully connect to any carrier. This is a non-infringing activity
by the user. But for the software lock protected by § 1201, it appears that there would be nothing to stand in the wayof a consumer being able to engage in this non-infringing use of a lawfully purchased mobile handset and thesoftware that operates it.”)
397

The named proponents, along with EFF, filed voluminous comments, appendices, and supplements,
substantiating the need for an exemption. In addition, the Register has received comments from individuals acrossthe country providing anecdotal evidence in support of an exemption of a type similar to the 2006 exemption which
permitted them to unlock their phones. See, e.g., R5 (Flerchinger), R6 (Kilpatrick), and R12 (Brenner). According
to online surveys initiated by EFF, 632 individuals are on record as voicing their support for the exemptions stated in
Proposed Classes 5B, 5C and 5D. R44 (Pocket) at Exhibit A, p. 3. Lincoln Han stated that he has helped thousandsof people unlock their mobile phones so that they can be used on other networks. R25 (Han) at 4.
On the other hand, as noted above, substantial arguments were offered in opposition, in contrast to the situation three
years ago.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 117

something that occurs simply by turning on the device.398 Or, it may consist of the making of a
derivative work based on the computer program embedded in the firmware, which may need to beadapted in order to operate on another network. In addition to such alleged acts of infringement,
opponents of the proposed class have alleged that permitting circumvention of access controls
protecting the firmware will enable the unauthorized use, including possible unauthorized
reproduction or distribution, of other works of authorship, such as ringtones, “wallpaper,” etc.,that are typically loaded onto a mobile phone.399

The following section addresses the specific legal arguments made by the proponents andopponents of the proposed class regarding noninfringing use with respect to the copyrights in themobile phone firmware.
b.

Circumvention in Order to Access Firmware to Switch
Mobile Phone Networks

The Reproduction Right. Virgin Mobile explained that its customized mobile phone
operating system, software applications, and most content reside on flash memory built into its
handsets. It stated that when the operating system and/or applications are being used on thehandset, instructions embodied in such software are first copied from the flash memory into afaster memory chip, namely the RAM. It added that the instructions are then loaded from RAM
into the processor, where they are executed. Virgin Mobile concluded that any use of the handset
necessarily requires making one or more internal copies of the operating system and/or
applications. It likewise concluded that in order to use any content, such content must be
temporarily copied from flash memory, whether built into the handset or removable memory, into

398
Opponents of the proposed classes, such as Virgin Mobile, have argued that in order to use a mobile
phone on another network, the owner of the phone must, at a minimum make RAM copies of the operating system
whenever the owner uses the phone, and that those copies are unauthorized and therefore infringing when they are
made in order to operate the phone on another network. They also have argued that it is frequently necessary to adapt
the operating system software in such a way that violates the copyright owner’s exclusive right to make derivative
works. Proponents have responded that the making of such copies and adaptations is noninfringing under Section
117. Those arguments and counterarguments are discussed below.
399

Issues relating to such other works of authorship are addressed, infra, in the discussion of the fourth
statutory factor under Section 1201(a)(1)(C) (the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market foror value of copyrighted works).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 118

RAM. For example, it noted that in order to play a ringtone, the data representing the ringtone
must be copied from flash memory into RAM.400
Virgin Mobile argued that its reproduction rights in the mobile phone operating systemand other software are infringed when a customer unlocks the handset and uses it with anothercarrier. It contended that the handsets cannot be used without using the operating system, and useof the operating system entails making copies of it in RAM. It also asserted that the use of any
other application or content on the handset also entails making copies. It argued that when aconsumer unlocks the handset (without reflashing the entire operating system) and continues touse software on the handset, she is making reproductions that exceed the scope of her license to
the software. It concluded that those reproductions are in clear violation of Virgin Mobile’s
Terms of Service, and, accordingly, are infringing.401
The Derivative Work Right. Virgin Mobile also argued that reflashing may, in somecases, modify the firmware in the mobile phone and in such cases the end result is a newderivative work.402 CTIA noted that in some cases, unlocking involves the use of a “patchedversion” of the bootloader and firmware, and asserted that a patched version is “a modification …
a derivative work, and I daresay an unauthorized one at that, that you need to load on the phone,in other words make a copy, in order to unlock the phone.”403
MetroPCS came to the opposite conclusion and asserted that reflashing a handset does notchange the underlying mobile phone software, but merely changes the underlying variables
accessed by the program.404 Cricket stated that no copies are made of the phone's firmware when it
is unlocked. It asserted that the action of unlocking allows the individual to update the preferredroaming list and it does not affect the firmware on the phone, the bootloader, or the operating
system. It commented that since the PRL is simply a file that gets updated, no infringement takes
place.405
400

R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 18-19; Response of Virgin Mobile to Copyright Office Questions relating toCellphones of July 13, 2009, at 7-11.
401

Id. CTIA also alluded to the reproduction issue. R43 (CTIA) at 30. As discussed below, CTIA also
referred to copying in its discussion of Section 117. Id at 31. See also T Joseph, 5/8/09 at 131.
402

R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 15-17.

403

T Joseph, 5/8/09, at 131. See also R43 (CTIA) at 30 as well as CTIA’s discussion of Section 117 at

404

C5B (MetroPCS) at 6.

405

T Inglish, 5/8/09, at 82, 195.

31-33.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 119

The iPhone is a GSM device that is exclusive to AT&T’s wireless network in the UnitedStates. It has a SIM card, as do most other GSM phones, but it appears that it is a more
complicated task to unlock this type of phone than to unlock the average mobile phone.406 EFF
stated that in the case of the iPhone, the SIM carrier lock is enforced by the baseband systemfirmware on the iPhone. Utilizing unique identifiers burned into the baseband system’s Infineon
SGold CPU and associated memory chips, the firmware establishes an area in memory known as
the “seczone” where encrypted information about the SIM lock status is kept. According to EFF,
the “seczone” contains policy information about which SIMs may be used with a particularphone, and related technical information. It asserted that the only difference between iPhones tied
to different carriers is the contents of this “seczone,” as the firmware and hardware (other than theunique tokens burned into the SGold and associated memory chips) are identical across all samemodel iPhones. EFF stated that Apple relies on a “chain of trust” between the baseband system’sbootrom, bootloader, and firmware, which is enforced by cryptographic signature checking, toprevent any unauthorized software from loading on the baseband system, thereby preventing an
iPhone owner from modifying the “seczone” carrier lock data.407
EFF asserted that, despite this design, both the “first generation” 2G iPhone and the“second generation” 3G iPhone can currently be “unlocked” by their owners using widely
available and relatively easy-to use software. It stated that the most popular software for thispurpose is Pwnage (for the 2G iPhone) and yellowsn0w (for the 3G iPhone). EFF commented that
because the restriction framework used in the 2G iPhone differs from that used in the 3G iPhone,
the corresponding unlocking techniques are different.408
EFF stated that for the 2G iPhone, the user installs a “patched” version of Apple’s
baseband firmware that does not enforce the SIM carrier lock. It commented that this is possible
because the bootrom in the baseband system does not perform a signature check on the bootloader
406

GSM mobile phones use a SIM card, which is a small device that stores a customer’s identifying
information in the handset. According to the Wireless Alliance, the card is easily removed and replaced. A customer
with a SIM card phone can easily select service providers by popping the appropriate card in the handset. The
network reads the card, allows the connection, and collects accurate billing information from the card. AT&T andother carriers program their handsets with SIM carrier locks to prevent them from operating if a different SIM card isinserted into the handset. C5D (Wireless Alliance) at 8-9. According to the record, all that is needed to permanently
free this type of mobile phone from its original wireless network is an “unlock code.” An example of a unlock code
for a handset is: 38123134. After inputting that code, a consumer can use any SIM card from any compatible
network to enable new service. R25 (Han) at 1-2. Han is the founder and former general manager of the
UnlockCellphone.com web site and has notable experience in this subject.
407

R49 (EFF) at 12.

408

Id. at 13.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 120

before loading it. It further commented that the Pwnage tool substitutes a “patched” version of thebootloader when the phone is turned on, which in turn, loads a “patched” version of Apple’s
baseband firmware that suppresses the SIM carrier lock.409
EFF stated that for the 3G iPhone, Apple improved the “chain of trust” in the baseband
system, reengineering it to require that the bootrom perform a signature check on the bootloader
before loading it. EFF asserted it is more difficult to substitute a “patched” version of thebaseband firmware in place of the unaltered version. It noted, however, that an owner of a 3G
iPhone can currently unlock it using an application known as yellowsn0w, which “injects”
software into the baseband system memory while the firmware is operating (i.e., “on-the-fly code
injection”), thereby suppressing the operation of the SIM carrier lock.410
Joint Creators and CTIA have both argued that a patched version of the iPhone’s firmware
constitutes an unauthorized derivative work.411
c.

Section 117

Proponents of the proposed class responded to the opponents’ arguments regarding
infringement of the reproduction and derivative work rights in the firmware by asserting that any
such acts are permitted under Section 117 of the Copyright Act.412 To reiterate, the pertinent
409

Id.

410

Id.

411

See T Metalitz, 5/1/09, at 157 (“But if you look at Exhibit A, page 13, [of EFF’s responsive
comments] it seems pretty clear that what is happening here in installing a patched version of Apple's-based band
firmware, using the Apple, for example -- and this is about unlocking, not jailbreaking, if you will; this is about
access to the network, and it states that this is basically identical to Apple's code, except -- and then there are somedifferences. So, it seems to pretty clearly to [sic] make the case that a derivative work is being prepared, or an
adaptation is being prepared.”); see also, T Joseph, 5/8/09, at 131 (stating the same).
412

The Register has declined to fully address the applicability of Section 117 in the case of the similar
proposed class of “Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications …,”
because proponents of that class had made a persuasive case that the conduct in which they wished to engage
constitutes fair use. In contrast, the proponents of this class did not make such a case. At most, proponents
intermittently referred to fair use when addressing the action of unlocking a mobile phone for the purpose of using
the device on another wireless network. See C5B (MetroPCS) at 7 (Customers who reflash their handsets are“making a noninfringing, fair use of copyrighted works that they rightfully own.”). In fact, one proponent invited
the Register to engage in a fair use analysis as part of the process of establishing the framework for a possible new
exemption, but failed to offer any analysis of its own. R44 (Pocket) at 8 (“[W]e respectfully request that the Officeattempt to clarify the intended meaning of the word ‘lawfully’ [to encompass] purposes that either do not infringe orare fair uses of the copyrights in the Device’s programming.”). See also, T Granick, 5/1/09, at 151 (“I could go
through the fair-use factors, but I think one of the most important things to point to is there is no market for thisfirmware outside of the handset.”) If Ms. Granick had “go[ne] through the fair-use factors,” she might have made asufficient case to permit the Register to consider whether, as argued, “fair use applies.” See id. Opponents of theRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 121

language of Section 117(a) is as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for theowner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making ofanother copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in theutilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner, or(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archive purposes only and that
all archived copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful.413
EFF asserted that “[t]o the extent that any …exclusive rights are implicated, 17 U.S.C. §117 authorizes the owner of a copy of a computer program to make a new copy or adaptation as
an essential step in the utilization of that program with a machine.”414 EFF asserted that even if
reprogramming through reflashing is viewed as making an adaptation of the copyrighted work,
the adaptation is non-infringing because under Section 117, the owner of a copy of a software
program has the right to modify the source code of that program, including “add[ing] features to[the program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition.” It argued that in*] Krausev. Titleserv,415 the Second Circuit held that the rightful possessor of a copy of a software program
can make modifications and improvements to that program. It concluded that as with thedefendant in Krause, the consumer is the rightful possessor of the work (embedded in the phone)and simply wants to modify her copy of firmware to better meet her needs. It argued that this is anoninfringing use under Section 117.416 EFF also asserted that the purchaser of a mobile phone isthe owner of the phone; she has the right to keep and use the phone forever, and no wirelessprovider ever puts restrictions on the purchaser’s disposal of the phone. Therefore, EFF

proposed class referred to fair use, but did not present any arguments as to why fair use does not apply here,
presumably because proponents had not offered any case on fair use for them to rebut. Because no case has been
made that fair use is applicable here, the Register cannot resolve the request to designate this class on that basis andmust address the applicability of Section 117, on which issue has been joined.
413

17 U.S.C. § 117(a).

414Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009,

415

402 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 622 (2005). Krause is also discussed supra,

at 7.
pp. 82, 89-90.
416

C5D (Wireless Alliance) at 10, citing Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d 119, 125-26 (2d Cir. 2005).

* Corrected text. This line was inadvertently omitted from the memorandum delivered to the Librarian of Congress
on June 11, 2010, which was originally posted on the Copyright Office website. Correction posted 8/30/2010.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 122

concluded, the purchaser is entitled under Section 117 to continue to use the firmware on thephone even after her relationship with the wireless carrier has terminated.417

MetroPCS argued that even if a minor, write-only operation (resulting from reflashing)were to be construed as changing the underlying mobile phone operating system code, suchchanges would be permitted under Section 117 so long as they were solely for the purpose of
enabling the consumer to choose the carrier’s network to support use of his or her device. It
asserted that Section 117(a)(1) permits the alteration of copyrighted computer programs provided
that “such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of thecomputer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.” Itargued that reflashing is an action permitted under the law since the changes being made to themobile phone software are identical to the ones made routinely by the original wireless carrier tomake the mobile phone operate on its network. 418

Virgin Mobile argued that reliance on Section 117 is inapt because the handset purchasers
are not owners of the software for purposes of Section 117. It argued that ownership is notdetermined according to whether or not one owns the device on which the software resides or on
title alone, but depends on whether the party “exercises sufficient incidents of ownership.”419 It
asserted that the case law makes it clear that software that is purchased with contractual
limitations on its use is not sold, but is licensed.420 It noted that in DSC Communications Corp. v.
Pulse Communications, Inc.,421 the Federal Circuit explained that the possessor of a copy is not anowner for purposes of Section 117 where an agreement prohibits the possessor of the copy fromusing the software other than as provided by the copyright holder. It asserted that in DSC
Communications, the licensee was limited to use of the software “solely in conjunction with the417

T Granick, 5/1/09, at 150-51.

418

C5B (MetroPCS) at 8. See 17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1).

419

R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 23, citing Krause, 402 F.3d at 124. See T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 215 (“Under 117,
the customer is not the owner of the software. They have a license to it.”).
420

Post-Hearing Response of Virgin Mobile to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July13, 2009, at 14, citing DSC Commc'ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc'ns, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(agreeing with non-ownership holdings in MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993)
and Advanced Computer Servs. of Mich. v. MAI Sys. Corp., 845 F. Supp. 356, 367 (E.D. Va. 1994)).
421

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 123

Material (i.e., the Lifespan-2000 and related equipment) during the useful life of the Material.”422
It argued that this is exactly the case here: a customer purchasing a handset is permitted to use thesoftware preloaded on the handset only in connection with a particular service and is not allowed
to alter it in any way, among other limitations, and thus the handset purchaser is not an “owner”
of the software for purposes of Section 117.423
CTIA also argued that the uses that proponents wish to make of the wireless handset
firmware are not noninfringing under Section 117. It stated that Section 117 permits adaptationor copying of software only as an “essential step in the utilization of the computer program” andonly when “it is used in no other manner.” It asserted that in this circumstance, mobile phoneusers already are successfully using the firmware “in conjunction with a machine,” with theircurrent service provider and with authorized software, and the device is operating as intended.424
It added that under the plain terms of the statute, circumvention is not an “essential step in theutilization of” that firmware “in conjunction with a machine.” It also argued that Section
117(a)(1) insulates from copyright liability only those software modifications necessary to enable
the software to operate with the purchaser’s machine in the manner “for which it was both soldand purchased.”
According to CTIA, Section 117 does not provide an open-ended invitation to modify
already-functioning firmware to permit a handset to operate with another carrier or with othersoftware with which it was not intended or designed to operate. CTIA stated that at least some ofthe proponents were seeking to apply the statute to activities that are specifically outside thescope of the statute, which limits use of Section 117(a)(1) adaptations to personal, internal use
and forbids the transfer of such adaptations to third parties. It concluded that because the changes
authorized by Section 117 are for personal use only, any such commercial distribution ofmodified firmware in and of itself removes the firmware adaptations from the scope of the law’s
protection.

422

Id.

423

CTIA characterized “whether or not the owner of the phone is the owner of the software or a licenseeof the software” as an “interesting question,” observing that there are “cases that suggest that where there are severe
restrictions or significant restrictions on use, such as don’t use the phone on a different network, that that is one
indicium, at least, that you don’t have ownership of the kind that Section 117 was contemplating.” T Joseph, 5/8/09,
at 171.
424

R43 (CTIA) at 31-33. Virgin Mobile also stated that its customers do not need to make any copies ormodifications if the handset is used as intended with Virgin Mobile’s service. Post-Hearing Response of Virgin
Mobile to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009, at 13.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010i.

Ownership

Page 124

As noted in the discussion of the proposed class of “Computer programs that enablewireless telephone handsets to execute software applications …,”425 one of the key factors indetermining whether Section 117 applies in this instance is whether the mobile phone consumer
owns the copy of the computer program, which, in this instance, is the firmware. It is undisputedthat the consumer has purchased and owns the hardware, that is, the mobile phone device. In thiscase, the consumer can dispose of the device in any manner she deems appropriate either by
discarding it, selling it, or giving it away. Moreover, it seems apparent that ordinarily the ownerof a device on which the copy of the firmware is fixed is also the owner of that copy.426 Thus, inthe absence of any additional facts, the fact that a person has purchased a mobile phone would
appear to resolve the question whether that person owns the copies of any software fixed withinthat phone.
However, in the context of Section 117, the matter of ownership of a copy of a computer
program is more nuanced, and the case law interpreting this provision is inconsistent.
Krause v. Titleserv427 has been cited by proponents and opponents of the proposed class as
key precedent in determining ownership of computer programs.428 In Krause, the court stated that“it seems anomalous for a user whose degree of ownership of a copy is so complete that he may
lawfully use it and keep it forever, or if so disposed, throw it in the trash, to be nonethelessunauthorized to fix it when it develops a bug, or to make an archival copy as backup security.”429
Rather than looking to formal title as an “absolute prerequisite to qualifying for § 117(a)’saffirmative defense … [i]nstead, courts should inquire into whether the party exercises sufficient

425

Supra, p. 78.

426

See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (definition of “copies”: “‘Copies’ are material objects … in which a work isfixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, orotherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”). When software is loaded onto a
device such as an iPhone, the device itself (or some part of that device, such as a hard drive) is the material object inwhich the software is fixed.
427

402 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2005).

428

T Granick, 5/1/09, at 150, 174, 216-17; T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 217. However, the witness testifying on
behalf of CTIA, while accepting that Krause is controlling law in the Second Circuit, refused to accept “that Krausehas settled the law.” T Joseph, 5/8/09, at 175. Therefore, unlike the situation with respect to class of “Computer
programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications …,” the proponents andopponents of this proposed class have not agreed that Krause is necessarily “good law.”429

Krause, 402 F.3d at 123.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 125incidents of ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered the owner of thecopy for purposes of § 117(a). The presence of formal title may of course be a factor in thisinquiry, but the absence of formal title may be outweighed by evidence that the possessor of thecopy enjoys sufficiently broad rights over it to be sensibly considered its owner.”430
The Second Circuit in Krause relied heavily on its decision in Aymes v. Bonelli (“AymesII”), where the Second Circuit originally recognized that Section 117 entailed a nuanced
analysis.431 In Aymes II, where a computer programmer brought action against a corporation
alleging that the corporation had infringed the copyright in his computer program, the Second
Circuit focused on distinguishing between the copyrighted computer program and a copy of thecomputer program.432 The court ultimately determined that the defendants were rightful owners ofa copy of the plaintiff’s copyrighted computer program and accordingly, did not infringe upon theplaintiff’s copyright because the changes made to the defendants’ copy of the program werenecessary measures in their continuing use of the software in operating their business.433 The
court further determined that the defendants properly modified their copy of the program to suit
their own needs434 and their adaptations were essential to allow use of the program for the very
purpose for which it was purchased.435 The court noted specifically that “the modifications here
fall easily within the contemplation of CONTU”436 including the Commission’s view that “a right430

Id. at 124.

431
47 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1995) (involving the second time the case went up to the Second Circuit, and thus
referred to as Aymes II). The case involved computer programs written by Aymes for Island Recreation Inc. and its
president Jonathan Bonelli. The programs were collectively called CSALIB and were designed to facilitate Island’s
inventory, record-keeping, and sales efforts in Island’s business of operating a chain of retail stores sellingswimming pools and related supplies. Aymes claimed, inter alia, that Bonelli agreed to only use the programs on
one computer and agreed to grant Aymes the exclusive right to modify the programs. Also important to the case was
the fact that Island paid Aymes to design a program specifically for Island’s use, and for those efforts Aymes was
paid in excess of $70,000.
432

Id. at 25.

433

Id. at 26.

434

The court noted that “[u]ntil this lawsuit Aymes never sought to prohibit others from making
modifications to the programs, although for some time he had been aware that Island had hired another programmer
to convert and modify CSALIB.” See 47 F.3d at 27.
435

436

Id. at 27.

Aymes v. Bonnelli, 47 F.3d 23, 26 (2nd Cir. 1995). CONTU was the “National Commission on New
Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works.” Congress established CONTU in 1974 to perform research and makerecommendations concerning copyright protection for computer programs, and Section 117 was enacted on therecommendation of CONTU. The CONTU Report has been treated as tantamount to a legislative history of Section
117. See Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 259-61 (5th Cir. 1988). However, Congress changed

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 126

to make those changes necessary to enable the use for which it was both sold and purchasedshould be provided.”437 The court emphasized the right to modify and add features to a work andthe internal or private nature of the adaptation.438
For purposes of Section 117, the distinction between the owner of the work and the ownerof a copy of a work is critical. The Second Circuit in Krause confirmed that this determination ofownership is not based solely on formal title, but rather on “the various incidents of ownership.”439
The characterization of formal title is relevant, but not determinative here; nevertheless, its
relevance is limited to formal title of the “copy” of the computer program. Even if evidence offormal title to the copy is present, courts must also assess the various incidents of ownership. In
particular, the Second Circuit looked to a number of factors to determine the status of a copy of awork, including: (1) whether substantial consideration was paid for the copy; (2) whether the
copy was created for the sole benefit of the purchaser; (3) whether the copy was customized toserve the purchaser’s use; (4) whether the copy was stored on property owned by the purchaser;(5) whether the creator reserved the right to repossess the copy; (6) whether the creator agreed
that the purchaser had the right to possess and use the programs forever regardless of whether the
relationship between the parties terminated; and (7) whether the purchaser was free to discard or
destroy the copy anytime it wished.440 As noted above in the discussion of the proposed class of“Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications…,” other courts have taken different approaches to what is “ownership” for purposes of Section
117.441
one word from the provision recommended by CONTU, which used the term “rightful possessor” rather than owner.
Id. at 261 n. 11. There is nothing in the legislative history of Section 117 that explains Congress’s reasons formaking this change in terminology. See Krause, 402 F.3d at 122-23.
437

Aymes, 47 F.3d at 26, citing CONTU Report at 13.

438

CONTU Report at 13. (According to the CONTU Report, copyright laws should reflect the fact thattransactions involving computer programs are entered into with “full awareness that users will modify their copies tosuit their own needs.” This right of adaptation includes “the right to add features to the program that were not present
at the time of rightful acquisition”, and was intended to apply to modifications for internal use, as long as theadapted program is not distributed in an unauthorized manner.)(citations omitted).
439

Krause, 402 F.3d at 123.

440

Id. at 124.

441
See, e.g., Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006) (if“severe restrictions” are imposed on the use or transfer of the copy, then the transaction is a license, not a sale, andthe purchaser of the copy is a licensee, not an “owner” within the meaning of Section 117); MAI Sys. Corp. v. PeakComputer, Inc, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding simply that “[s]ince MAI licensed its software, the Peakcustomers do not qualify as ‘owners’ of the software and are not eligible for protection under § 117”); see also, DSC
Communications Corp. v. Pulse Communications, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (rejecting “theRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 127

Moreover, in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 442 a recent case from a district court in the Ninth
Circuit interpreting that circuit’s case law, the court found a conflict in Ninth Circuit cases on thequestion of ownership of a copy of a work. The court resolved the conflict by applying the Ninth
Circuit rule that the “oldest precedent among conflicting opinions from three-judge Ninth Circuit
panels” must be applied.443 Following the oldest precedent, the court held that the “MAI trio”(which included Wall Data) cannot be reconciled with Wise (the earlier case), and that Wise wasthe controlling precedent that must be followed.444 According to Vernor, Wise “establishes thateven a transfer that places severe restrictions on the use and disposition of a copy of copyrighted
material can transfer ownership of that copy.”445 The hallmark of a transfer of ownership was
ability of the possessor of the copy to retain possession indefinitely, coupled with the failure of
the copyright owner to retain the right to regain possession.446 Although Vernor involved
interpretation of the meaning of “owner” for purposes of Section 109 of the Copyright Act, thestatutory codification of the first sale doctrine, the court concluded that “owner” has the same
meaning for purposes of both provisions.447 In fact, the conflict in Ninth Circuit caselaw that the
court felt compelled to resolve was between cases addressing Section 117 (the MAI trio) and acase addressing Section 109 (Wise). Vernor is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and it istherefore likely that the Court of Appeals will either resolve the conflict identified by the district
court in Vernor or conclude that the cases can be reconciled with each other.

Ninth Circuit's characterization of all licensees as non-owners,” but concluding that the particular contracts involvedin the litigation “severely limit the rights of the RBOCs with respect to the POTS-DI software in ways that areinconsistent with the rights normally enjoyed by owners of copies of software,” and that the possessors of the copiesof the software were not owners of those copies).
442

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., No. C07-1189, 2009 WL 3187613, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90906 (W.D.
Wash. Sept. 30, 2009)(finding a conflict between United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1977) and what the
court referred to as the “MAI trio,” consisting of MAI Sys. Corp. v Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1995);
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995); and Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006)). See also Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 555 F.Supp.2d 1164 (W.D.
Wash. 2008) (earlier decision in the Vernor case); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, 558 F.Supp.2d 1055 (C.D. Cal.
2008) (largely in accord with Vernor). Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals are pending in both Vernor(No. 09-35969) and UMG (08-55998).
443

Vernor, slip op. at 19, citing, United States v. Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d 932, 943 (9th Cir. 2005).

444

Id. at 20.

445

Id. at 9.

446

Id. at 12.

447

Id. at 20-24.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 128

Given the variety of approaches adopted by different courts that have considered who may
be the “owner” of a copy under Section 117, determining whether owners of mobile phones arealso the owners of the copies of computer programs fixed in media on those phones is a difficult
task. The record in this rulemaking offers evidence that some wireless carriers impose
contractual restrictions on their subscribers that may well, at least in the view of some courts, besufficient to deprive the subscribers of ownership of the copies of the software fixed on theirhandsets. At the same time, the record fails to contain such evidence with respect to all wirelesscarriers.
Virgin Mobile introduced the pertinent language from its “Terms of Purchase” and“Terms of Service.” The Terms of Purchase includes the following language:
You are permitted to use the software and content on this Virgin Mobile phone solely inconnection with your use of the phone on our network expressly authorized by Virgin
Mobile. Any use that exceeds this authorized use may infringe the rights of Virgin Mobile
or its business partners. This phone is sold exclusively for use with service that Virgin
Mobile USA provides.448
Virgin Mobile’s Terms of Service provide:The software and content on the Virgin Mobile phones and devices, including theoperating system, applications, data, information, music, games, images, text and othermaterial, are owned by Virgin Mobile and/or its business partners. You are permitted touse this software and content solely in connection with your use of the Virgin Mobile
phone on our network as expressly authorized under these Terms of Service. You may not
distribute or upload any pre-loaded software or content to another device or transmit orbroadcast the software or content, or otherwise copy or use the software or content in any
manner not expressly authorized under these Terms of Service or, with respect to any
downloaded content or applications, any other governing terms of use. If you violate any
material term of these Terms of Service, including without limitation by using a Virgin
Mobile phone or device on another network, by modifying any hardware or software on a
Virgin Mobile phone or device, or by distributing, copying or otherwise using any of thesoftware or content on a Virgin Mobile phone in a manner that is not authorized by theseTerms of Service, your license to the software and content shall terminate immediately
and your continued use thereof will constitute copyright infringement.449
These terms do appear to limit the Virgin Mobile subscriber’s rights with respect to thesoftware in ways that may be inconsistent with the rights normally enjoyed by owners of copies
448

Post-Hearing Response of Virgin Mobile to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009at 9 n. 10.
449

Id. at 9, n. 11; see also R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 9-10.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 129of software, most notably by permitting use of the handset only with Virgin Mobile authorized
service. Under the Ninth Circuit’s test as articulated in Wall Data and under the analysis of theFederal Circuit as articulated in DSC Communications, there is a reasonable likelihood that theseprovisions would be held to deprive the Virgin Mobile subscriber of ownership of the copies ofthe software residing on her phone. On the other hand, if Vernor correctly states the law withrespect to who is the owner of a copy of software, the Virgin Mobile terms appear to fall short ofretaining ownership in Virgin Mobile, since they do not appear to restrict the mobile phoneowner’s right to retain possession of the copy of the software. Finally, the result under Krause isunclear. The consideration paid for the copy most likely would not be considered “substantial,”
the copy is not created for the sole benefit of the purchaser, and it is not customized to serve thepurchaser’s use. On the other hand, the copy is stored on property owned by the purchaser (i.e.,
the phone); the creator does not reserve the right to repossess the copy; and the purchaser is free
to discard or destroy the copy any time she wishes. The record does not clearly reveal whether
the creator agreed that the purchaser had the right to possess and use the programs forever
regardless of whether the relationship between the parties terminated, although the provisions
permitting use of the software only in connection with Virgin Mobile’s service and network likely
negate such an interpretation. In short, some of the Krause factors suggest that the owner of theVirgin Mobile phone also owns the copy of the software, while some of the Krause factors
suggest that Virgin Mobile retains ownership.
Virgin Mobile is the only wireless carrier for which licensing terms were submitted for therecord in the unlocking context. However, in connection with the proposed class for “Computer
programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications …,” software
licenses for Apple’s iPhone were submitted for the record.450 The iPhone is currently marketed in
the United States only for use with AT&T’s wireless service. According to Apple, restrictions in
the iPhone software license require the conclusion that the owner of an iPhone does not own thecomputer software that operates the iPhone.
Apple’s end-user license agreement states that the user owns the media on which thesoftware resides, but Apple retains ownership of the software. Apple argued that this provisionmeans that a purchaser only owns only the hardware, but is licensed to use the software in theprescribed manner. Apple contended that the license agreement demonstrates that the owner ofan iPhone is simply a licensee of the copy of the computer programs on the phone and that as alicensee, Section 117(a) is inapplicable.
450

Post-Hearing Response of Apple to Copyright Office Questions relating to iPhone modification ofJuly 13, 2009, at 17-45.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 130

Looking first to the license that Apple claims establishes that iPhone purchasers are
merely licensees and not owners, it becomes clear that there is not one license, but in fact there
are four versions of the license that must be examined. The critical language in all four iPhone
license agreements is contained in sections 1 (“General”), 2 (“Permitted License Uses andRestrictions”), and 3 (“Transfer”).
Section 1 of the first three versions of the agreement states, inter alia: “The software(including the Boot ROM code and other embedded software) . . . are licensed, not sold, to you byApple, Inc. . . . .You own the media on which the iPhone Software is recorded but Apple and/orApple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the iPhone Software itself.”451 The fourth version of theagreement omits the last sentence, and instead states: “Apple and its licensors retain ownership of
the iPhone Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.”452
At first glance, this language might appear to resolve the issue because Apple clearlystates that iPhone purchasers are licensees of the iPhone Software, and are not owners of thesoftware; purchasers only own the media on which the iPhone Software is recorded. But withregard to the specific issue presented here, whether the iPhone purchaser is the “owner of a copyof the computer program,” the license agreement is “not a model of clarity.”453 The license
agreements (including the altered language in the fourth version) all make it abundantly clear that
Apple owns the “software,” but that language is ambiguous as to whether the word “software”
refers to the copyrighted computer programs themselves or to the particular copies of thosecomputer programs contained on the iPhone. Dictionary definitions of the term “software” do notclarify the meaning of this term in the contract.454 The silence, or at least ambiguity, in thecontract in relation to the meaning of this critical term is significant, because it is a maxim ofcontract construction that an ambiguous term in a contract is to be construed against the drafter.455

451

Id. at 18, 25, and 33.

452

Id. at 41.

453

Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to iPhone modification of July13, 2009, at 10.

454

Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th Ed.) defines “software” as “the programs, routines, etc.
for a computer or computer system.” Other definitions state that software can refer to anything on a computer that is
not hardware.
455

In re Emery, 317 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003); Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d
1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1654. The Apple software license agreements recite that they
are governed by California law.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 131

Without more, it seems unlikely that an ambiguous provision reciting who owns the“software” is sufficient to justify the conclusion that Apple retains ownership of the copies of thesoftware on each iPhone. Apple points out that its software licensing agreement also does not
permit the sale or distribution of the software,456 but the prohibition is subject to a significant
exception permitting such a transfer in connection with a transfer of ownership of the iPhone
itself. Thus, it appears that the owner of an iPhone may sell that iPhone, and that the sale may
include the copy of the software that is on the iPhone.
Given those facts, it is not entirely clear whether the owner of an iPhone is also the ownerof the copy of the software on the iPhone. Under the Vernor test, the answer would appear to be“yes.” Apple argued that in another recent district court case, MDY Industries, LLC, the court
held that no Section 117 rights existed where a license agreement provided that title to all copies
of software remained with the copyright holder, the software could not be transferred except bytransferring the original media along with the original packaging and manuals, and the transfereeof the software had to agree to the terms of the license; provisions similar to provision in the
iPhone license.457 That case suggests that under the rule of the Ninth Circuit’s “MAI trio,” it isarguable that Apple might also retain ownership of the copy under its license. As with the Virgin
Mobile license, the result in the Second Circuit under Krause is uncertain.

However, Virgin Mobile is only one carrier, and the iPhone is only one device (currently
offered by only one carrier in the United States). The record with respect to other mobile carriersis spotty at best. CTIA has described some provisions contained in the contracts between its
members and their subscribers, but with one exception, it does not identify any of the carriers.
CTIA offered the following examples:456
Post-Hearing Response of Apple to Copyright Office Questions relating to iPhone modification ofJuly 13, 2009, at 4.

457

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53988 at *26-28, 2008
WL 2757357 at *8-10 (D. Ariz., July 14, 2008). In a subsequent opinion, the same court stated that “[t]he Court
recognizes that the Ninth Circuit may choose to reconsider its position on some or all of these issues during theappeal of this case.” MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24151 at *7,
2009 WL 64971, at *2 (D. Ariz., March 10, 2009). The MDY case is now on appeal to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has ordered that argument of the appeals in Vernor and MDY shall be before thesame panel. Order, MDY Industries LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Nos. 09-15932 and 09-16044, and Vernor
v. Autodesk Inc., No. 09-35969 (9th Cir., Dec. 23, 2009). In fact, the arguments of MDY, Vernor and UMG all took
place before the same panel on June 7, 2010.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 132

1. A pre-paid service contractually obligates the purchasers of its phones to use thosephones only in connection with its service and prohibits tampering with the phone to enable usewith another service.
2. Another major CTIA member’s Wireless Service Agreement expressly provides: “Youagree that you will not make any modifications to the Equipment or programming to enable theEquipment to operate on any other system.” The agreement goes on to provide that the service
provider may, in its discretion, modify the phone, and provides contact information if thecustomer is interested in using his or her phone on another system.
3. A third large carrier, which primarily only locks its pre-paid phones, includes in its prepaid contract a provision that states “[y]our wireless phone . . . cannot be used with any otherwireless service even if it’s no longer used to receive our service.”
4. T-Mobile’s terms and conditions state that a “T-Mobile Device is designed to be used
only with T-Mobile service; however, you may be eligible to have your Device reprogrammed towork with another carrier, but you must contact us to do so.” The same Terms and Conditions
prohibit “tampering with or modifying your Device,” and “reselling T-Mobile Devices for profit,or tampering with, reprogramming or altering Devices for the purpose of reselling the Device.”458
These provisions are similar in nature to the Virgin Mobile provisions. Given theuncertain state of the law relating to “ownership” for purposes of Section 117, it is difficult topredict with confidence whether a court would conclude who is the owner of the copy of thesoftware on the phone in each of those cases.
The Register cannot and need not attempt to resolve that issue. The record does not
require or, indeed, permit her to do so. The fact is that proponents of the proposed class havemade a prima facie case that owners of mobile phones are also the owners of the copies of thesoftware that are fixed on those phones and that as owners they are entitled to exercise the Section
117 privilege. With respect to iPhones and with respect to phones sold by Virgin Mobile and TMobile, opponents of the proposed class have arguably rebutted that case. But it is impossible toconclude from the record in this proceeding that the proponents’ case with respect to ownershiphas been rebutted with respect to any other particular carrier. In other words, the Register cannot
conclude that in all cases, or even in most cases, the wireless carrier retains ownership of the458

R43 (CTIA) at 33.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 133

copies of the software that are fixed in the phones that they sell. Therefore, because the record
requires the conclusion that a substantial portion of mobile phone owners also own the copies ofthe software on their phones, the Register must conclude those mobile phone owners may takeadvantage of the Section 117 privileges to make copies and adaptations of that software.
It is, therefore, necessary to turn to the question whether persons who use their phones onwireless networks, other than those first authorized by the wireless carriers that sold the phones,
are engaging in noninfringing uses of the software on those phones when they (1) make copies ofthe software on their phones by turning them on, thereby causing copies to be made in thedevices’ RAM and (2) modify the firmware in order to enable the phone to communicate with the
new network.
ii.

Copies

It is not difficult to resolve whether the owner of a mobile phone who also owns the
copies of software on the phone is engaging in a noninfringing use under Section 117 when she
makes RAM copies of the software in order to operate the phone, even if she is operating it on
another network. Section 117 unambiguously states that it is not an infringement for the owner ofa copy of a computer program to make a copy when the making of that copy is an essential step inthe utilization of that software in conjunction with a machine. Because the software cannot be
used in the phone (a device that, for purposes of Section 117, qualifies as “machine”) unless theRAM copies are made, the making of those copies clearly is an essential step in its utilization. As
the CONTU Report stated:
Because the placement of a work into a computer is the preparation of a copy, thelaw should provide that persons in rightful possession of copies of programs beable to use them freely without fear of exposure to copyright liability. Obviously,
creators, lessors, licensors, and vendors of copies of programs intend that they beused by their customers, so that rightful users would but rarely need a legal shield
against potential copyright problems. It is easy to imagine, however, a situation inwhich the copyright owner might desire, for good reason or none at all, to force a
lawful owner or possessor of a copy to stop using a particular program. One whorightfully possesses a copy of a program, therefore, should be provided with alegal right to copy it to that extent which will permit its use by that possessor. This
would include the right to load it into a computer and to prepare archival copies of
it to guard against destruction or damage by mechanical or electrical failure. But
this permission would not extend to other copies of the program. Thus, one could
not, for example, make archival copies of a program and later sell some while
retaining some for use. The sale of a copy of a program by a rightful possessor toanother must be of all rights in the program, thus creating a new rightful possessor

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 134and destroying that status as regards the seller. This is in accord with the intent ofthat portion of the law which provides that owners of authorized copies of a
copyrighted work may sell those copies without leave of the copyrightproprietor.459
iii.

Modifications, Adaptations and Derivative Works

As a general rule, anyone who wishes to switch her mobile phone from one network toanother must alter some information embedded in the device. However, in a substantial numberof cases those alterations do not appear to implicate Section 117. The principal reason for thisconclusion is that the elimination and insertion of codes or digits, or completely reflashing aphone, cannot be considered an infringement of the computer program controlling the device. In
the case of complete reflashing, deletion of the entire work (the firmware) and replacing it with anentirely new work does not implicate any of the exclusive rights in the deleted work. And, when
specific codes or digits are altered to identify the new network to which the phone will connect,
those minor alterations of data also do not implicate any of the exclusive rights of copyrightowners.
When changes are made to uncopyrightable data that the computer program interacts within order to perform a particular task (the data necessary to enable interoperability with devices, oras in this case, networks), such changes do not constitute infringement of the right to makederivative works based on the computer program. The codes that are changed are in locations thatwere created in order to contain variables. In other words, the computer program looks for, andinteracts with, data in certain spaces or placeholders designed to contain variable information
related to interoperability with mobile networks. The program will function regardless of whichcode is inserted. The fact that at one point a code is specified in one of these variable locations
does not change the fact that these locations in the program are, and were, created to be variable.
Taken out of the complexities of computer software, this situation is analogous to the song
“Happy Birthday.” In that song, there is a variable location in the lyrics into which a name isintended to be inserted. The name is not a part of the work, but rather the work is intended toinclude a variable so that alternate names can be inserted to achieve the purpose of the song. The
same is true with respect to the computer programs running some mobile phones.460

459

460

CONTU Report at 13.

For instance, Verizon’s handsets now have these variables set to zeroes solely to prevent problems forcustomers, however, customers may insert different variables in order to use the phone with a new provider.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 135

Under a plain reading of the statutory language of Section 117, “adaptation” relates tochanges that would, in the absence of Section 117, infringe the derivative right. This follows fromthe fact that adaptations that would not infringe the copyright in the computer program would not
require an exemption. However, if the changes to the computer program would infringe thereproduction or derivative work right of the copyright owner of that computer program, thosechanges may be privileged under Section 117. This provision immunizes “a new copy or
adaptation” that is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine if the entity making the copy or adaptation is the owner of theparticular copy of the computer program. If the firmware has been modified to a degree that it
infringes the derivative work right, such an adaption may be permitted under Section 117 if it ismade by the owner of the copy of the computer program and meets the other requirements of that
section.
When the purchaser of a mobile phone is deemed to be the owner of the copy of thecomputer program contained on the phone, there are additional questions that must be answeredwith respect to adaptations that are necessary to use the handset with a new service provider andthat affect the derivative work right. The next step in the analysis is to determine whether theadaptation comports with the statutory language in Section 117.
Despite the fact that in many cases it appears that the changes made to a computer
program would not amount to an adaptation that would infringe the right to make derivative
works, in some cases an adaptation of a computer program may be made in the course of altering
the operating system that indeed could be considered an infringement of this right. In either
situation, the question of whether or not the adaptation was noninfringing under Section 117
would depend on whether the “adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of thecomputer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.”461 The
question that must be resolved here is whether the adaptation is an essential step in the use of themachine.
The Second Circuit focused on the phrase “essential step in the utilization of the computer
program in conjunction with a machine” in both Aymes II and Krause. Describing the analysis in
Aymes II, the Krause court stated: “[w]e concluded that the modifications were essential to thedefendants’ utilization of the programs within the meaning of § 117(a)(1) because the adaptations
were essential to allow use of the program[s] for the very purpose for which [they were]461

17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 136

purchased.”462 In assessing the case before it, the Krause court analyzed four types ofmodifications made by Titleserv in relation to the “essential step” language:
The modifications allegedly made by Titleserv to its copy of the programs fall into
four main categories: (1) correcting programming errors or "bugs," whichinterfered with the proper functioning of the programs; (2) changing the sourcecode to add new clients, insert changed client addresses, and perform other routine
tasks necessary to keep the programs up-to-date and to maintain their usefulness toTitleserv; (3) incorporating the programs into the Windows-based system Titleserv
designed and implemented between 1997 and 1998; and (4) adding capabilities,
such as the ability to print checks, and, to a limited degree, allowing customers
direct access to their records, which made Titleserv's copy of the programs more
responsive to the needs of Titleserv's business.463
The third category embraces the question of interoperability and the fourth category
addresses the ability to add new features. In the case of adaptation of the copies of computer
programs operating mobile phones, both categories are reasonably implicated. Theinteroperability at issue is not the kind that arose in cases involving personal computers on which
operating systems or applications needed to be adapted for compatibility to the hardware. Rather,in the instant case, the operating system is already embedded in the “device” and works with thatdevice as long it is used with the wireless service to which the phone is initially tethered. In order
to connect to another service, it is generally necessary to change something relating to theprogram, and some changes may require adaptation of the program that implicates the right tomake derivative works. Once connected to the new service, the reproduction of the copy or
adaptation in RAM is “essential” for the operation of the device. In terms of the adaptation that
may be necessary to connect to the new service, this may be considered analogous to providing
new features to the existing, albeit functioning, program that only allows connection with aparticular wireless network.
The Krause court declined to interpret the statutory language of “essential step in theutilization of the program in conjunction with a machine” narrowly. The court noted that the newfeatures that were added “were not strictly necessary to keep the programs functioning, but were
designed to improve the functionality in serving the business for which they were created.”464 The
court rejected a narrow reading of “an essential step” as limited to those changes required to keep
462

402 F.3d at 125.

463

Id. at 125-126.

464

Id. at 126.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 137

a program operational, finding that to read the statute so narrowly would require retreating from
Aymes II.465 As the court noted, the statute does not clearly indicate for what end modifications
must be absolutely necessary. It looked at the broader context of the sentence and found that “asan essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine”
revealed that “essential” was related to “utilization.” The court found that “utilization” mightrefer more broadly to “mak[ing][the program] useful” to the owner of the copy, in which caseadding new program features to enhance functionality might qualify as an “essential step” inmaking the program useful.”466 Furthermore, the clause “utilization with a machine” was not
limiting, but rather revealed that Congress might have been considering computer programs that
could operate on devices other than computers, such as in automobiles, airplanes, and air
conditioners.467 Finding that the statutory language was ambiguous, the court looked to thelegislative history behind Section 117.
The Second Circuit found that the pertinent passages in the CONTU Report “describe theright to modify programs in a manner that goes far beyond concern with compatibility andstrongly suggests that the writers of the CONTU Report envisioned a loose concept of necessitythat would encompass our very issue -- the addition of features so that a program better serves theneeds of the customer for which it was created.” Thus, the court found that the “right to add
features to the program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition” was consistent
with an “essential step in the utilization of the computer program.”468
The Register finds that this situation is analogous to the situation in Krause. Modifications
to the firmware or software on the phone may be necessary to make the device functional withanother service and better serve the legitimate needs of the customer. From a copyrightperspective, these individual changes benefit the purchaser despite the fact that some wirelesscarriers would like to have complete control over the device by restricting its use to their service.
But this was precisely the concern that was expressed in many parts of the CONTU Report -- that
protection for computer programs had the capacity to lead to anti-competitive practices and thatthe use of copyright in computer programs was a means to that anti-competitive end.469 This
concern might even be greater with the advent of the DMCA and attempts to leverage the
465

Id.

466

Id. at 127.

467

Id.

468

402 F.3d at 128, citing CONTU Report at 13.

469

See e.g., CONTU Report at 23.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 138

copyright in largely functional computer programs in order to support anti-competitive businessmodels in devices such as printer cartridges, garage door openers, or mobile phone services, or, inthe future, in automobiles, refrigerators, and all sorts of other machines and devices.
An adaptation of the computer programs in the mobile phone, either firmware or software,
may be an essential step to connecting to a new service. This use of the program increases its
utility to the user and relates to the inherent need for interoperability with respect to computer
programs that Section 117 intended to address, albeit in a changed and more complex
technological environment from that which existed in 1980. Moreover, the reproduction of acopy or an adaptation in RAM is an essential step to the utilization of the program on the phone.
Nevertheless, in this context, it is important to recognize that the distribution of adapted
software is limited by Section 117(b), which states:
Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may
be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which suchcopies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights
in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with theauthorization of the copyright owner.470
Under Section 117, then, it is clear that any modifications that may be made to a computer
program by an owner of a copy are limited to private use. That is, if a consumer does modify her
mobile phone’s firmware to such an extent that the changes implicate the derivative right, thedevice could not be transferred to anyone else with these adaptations. In this instance, Section
117(b) acts as a limitation on the first sale doctrine when adaptations of the software are made. In
contrast, when no adaptations are made that would affect the derivative right (e.g., merely
changing codes in the variable sectors of the program or completely deleting or reflashing the
proprietary software), there is no restriction in Section 117 on the alienation of those copies.
Based on the foregoing, the Register concludes that the proponents of this proposed classhave met their burden of showing that the prohibition on circumvention has had an adverse effecton the ability of a substantial, albeit unknown, number of mobile phone owners who also areowners of the copies of firmware on their devices to engage in noninfringing uses of thatfirmware, specifically when they attempt to engage in the noninfringing use of connecting theirphones to a new wireless network. The discussion will now turn to the factors enumerated in
Section 1201(a)(1)(C).
d.
470

The Section 1201 Factors

17 U.S.C. § 117(b) (emphasis added).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 139

With one exception, the discussion of the four 1201 factors in the record was rather thin.
Essentially, the Wireless Alliance argued that the four 1201 statutory factors weigh in favor of therequested exemptions. Virgin Mobile, on the other hand, argued that the four 1201 statutory
factors weigh against the grant of the exemptions. CTIA’s discussion of this topic centered on its
assertion that the proponents of the proposed class had not made an affirmative case that thestatutory factors disfavor designating the proposed class.471 The positions of these parties are
explained below.
Factor One
The Wireless Alliance asserted that there is no evidence to suggest that the availability of
firmware for mobile phones would be adversely affected by the proposed exemption. In thisinstance, it stated, the firmware for such phones is not generally sold separately from the phones
themselves.472
According to Virgin Mobile, the copyrighted works at issue here are the applications andcontent found on the mobile phone and the firmware. It contended that there is no demonstrated
likely adverse effect of the Section 1201 prohibition on circumvention on the availability ofsoftware applications and content on mobile phones. However, Virgin Mobile asserted that an
exemption could adversely affect the availability of proprietary applications on mobile phonehandsets where it is not practical to apply separate technological measures to protect access to
those works. Those assertions are addressed below in connection with the fourth Section
1201(a)(1)(C) factor, where Virgin Mobile offered similar arguments.
Factor Two
The Wireless Alliance asserted that there was no evidence to suggest that the availability(or lack of availability) of wireless phone firmware for non-profit uses would be harmed by an
exemption that permits mobile phone users to unlock their phones to enable interoperability with
the networks of multiple carriers. It further asserted that, in the wake of the 2006 exemption, there
has been no evidence of a reduction in the availability of phone firmware for the statutorily-471

R43 (CTIA) at 24.

472

C5D (Wireless Alliance) at 13.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 140

specified uses. Virgin Mobile plainly stated that there is no demonstrable effect on any of theseuses.
Factor Three
The Wireless Alliance asserted that there is no reason to believe that the availability (orlack of availability) of mobile phone firmware for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,or research purposes would be harmed by an exemption that permits mobile phone users to
unlock their phones to enable interoperability with the networks of multiple carriers. Again, it
claimed that in the wake of the 2006 exemption, there has been no evidence of a reduction in theavailability of phone firmware for the statutorily-specified purposes.473 Virgin Mobile repeatedthat there is no demonstrable effect on any of these uses.
Factor Four
The Wireless Alliance asserted that allowing customers to change networks has little to noadverse affect on the market for mobile phone-based software. It commented that a wirelesscarrier may claim it needs software locks because the carrier subsidizes the price of the handset
and it wants to make up the differential by ensuring that the consumer stays with the carriers
service. It noted, however, that every new mobile phone consumer signs a contract that provides
for a minimum monthly fee and an early termination penalty. It asserted that these contracts
ensure that wireless carriers will recoup, at a minimum, any subsidy provided to the consumer in
her monthly fees. It concluded that a wireless carrier receives every legitimate benefit for thepurchase subsidy it provides to its customers.474
Virgin Mobile stated that the software (including operating systems, proprietary
applications and content available) on mobile phones is becoming increasingly sophisticated. It
argued that the value of all of these works could be compromised if the handset is unlocked for
purposes of connecting to an alternative wireless network. It also feared that stored content can be
siphoned off the mobile phone and copied onto another device via a USB or serial port
connection.475
473

Id.

474

Id.

475

R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 36.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 141

There was extensive discussion in the record pertaining to the substance and nature of
preloaded and downloaded content (other than the firmware) such as ringtones, wallpaper, andother material typically loaded onto a mobile phone either before or after it is purchased. The
main question presented was whether the access controls at issue--the locks–were necessary toprotect such content. This was one subject that was not fully briefed and analyzed when the 2006
exemption was being considered.476
Virgin Mobile stated that its handsets are sold with content created by itself, the handset
manufacturer, and an array of other developers.477 It explained that customized softwaredeveloped or acquired by Virgin Mobile includes copyrighted applications, such as Contact Vault(an address book back-up application), and several default ringtones. It further explained that thehandset also may be loaded with other content, including games and background graphics createdby third parties. It commented that the copyrights for such works may be held by a number ofentities, but that all of these works are stored in “flash” memory on the handset.478 Virgin Mobile
was concerned that the proposed exemptions may open up such software and content tounauthorized copying.
Virgin Mobile stressed that the master subscriber lock, the TPM used to lock the mobile
phone, is the same one that also protects the embedded file system where copyrighted content
resides in the device. It stated that this shared TPM arrangement saves money and allows it tooffer much less expensive handsets to its customers.479 It asserted that it is not always feasible or476

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 53.

477

Virgin Mobile noted that the operating system controlling its handsets may be a combination of third
party software together with various programs developed by the handset manufacturer to allow the third party
software to operate on the handset hardware. It added that the operating system software will also typically run auser interface that was customized and owned by Virgin Mobile, including various Virgin Mobile graphics displayedon the handsets. T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 207.
478

Virgin Mobile explained that it sells ringtones under a licensing agreement with a music firm. It statedthat it is contractually required to protect such content from unauthorized copying and distribution. It asserted that if
the handset security is compromised, the security of such content may also be compromised, and Virgin Mobile
would be in material breach of its contract. Id.
479

Virgin Mobile noted that reflashing opens up the Preferred Roaming List and memory locations on thephone by allowing access to the embedded file system, thus exposing other copyrighted content. Ts Lurie andBuerger, 5/1/09, at 177. It added that DRM designed to protect individual content files would require significant
engineering, technology, and development expenses which, in turn, would lead to increased handset costs. It
asserted that an increase of just $10 in development costs necessary for a more advanced DRM system or chipset
could double the retail price of a handset. Post-Hearing Response of Virgin Mobile to Copyright Office Questions
Relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009, at 3.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 142

practical to provide additional protections on handsets for all copyrighted content and Section
1201 does not require any entity to use a particular type of TPM. Despite its protestations, and its
concerns about unauthorized use, Virgin Mobile admitted that it is currently unaware of any
rampant copying of the content on its mobile phones.480
CTIA stated that mobile phone locks foster copyright interests and protect copyrighted
works. It specifically asserted that the locks help ensure that wireless carriers and manufacturers
will invest in the development of new handsets, with new features and new applications. It
commented that when handset locks are circumvented, the circumventer obtains access to all of
the copyrighted content in a manner not authorized by the copyright owner. CTIA added thatwhile it is possible in some circumstances to use encryption-based technology to provide
additional protection for certain content, the obligation to decrypt the content each time it isaccessed imposes additional power and processing burdens on the device that can degrade theconsumer experience (e.g., by limiting battery life).481
Joint Creators stated that content that comes preloaded in the mobile phone at the time ofpurchase, such as wallpaper, ringtones, and games, may not be the subject of concern in thiscontext. They asserted that, in many cases, the full economic value of the licensing transaction
between the content provider and the handset manufacturer and/or the network has already beenliquidated. They noted, however, that there is still some concern about the use of content that was
downloaded after the purchase of the phone on the initial network and certain subscription-based
content that remains accessible on the new network. They were concerned that such material may
be “ported” out of the phone and then shared with others on an unauthorized basis. They
concluded that if an exemption is recognized, it must rule out any type of circumvention thatwould allow that type of activity.482
With regard to Virgin Mobile’s claims, EFF argued that none of the carrier’s exclusive
rights are infringed when a customer uses her handset on another network because the content is
not copied, but remains on the phone. It asserted that Virgin Mobile will only very rarely hold480

Virgin’s witness was asked the following question at the May 1, 2009 hearing: “Are you aware of any
cases where there has been, in fact, illicit copying of that content for perhaps redistribution to other people, apartfrom the use of the copy on that particular handset?” Peter Lurie responded: “I’m not aware of specific widespread
trading….but it’s certainly possible.” T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 207.
481

Post-Hearing Response of CTIA to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13,

2009, at 2.
482

T Metalitz, 5/8/09, at 135.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 143

copyright in ringtones, which are almost always snippets of popular songs owned by the recordlabels and music publishers.483 It further asserted that even for those few ringtones or for any userinterface elements in which Virgin Mobile might own a copyright, none of its exclusive rights are
infringed when a user uses her phone on a different service. EFF asserted that there is noevidence of infringement or harm to copyright interests since the 2006 exemption has been in
effect. It further asserted that no party has demonstrated that copyrighted content has, in fact,
been compromised.484
MetroPCS explained that it pays license fees for content embedded on its phones and themobile phone consumer is entitled to make non-infringing use of that content. It asserted thatwhether a consumer accesses a ringtone while connected to her original wireless network or acompeting network, the copyright owner has been paid the license fee for that work for use onthat handset, and the consumer deserves to enjoy the benefits of that ringtone as long as she owns
the handset. It further asserted that unlocking a mobile phone allows the consumer to have nogreater use of the original copyrighted work than was originally licensed and she is permitted tocontinue to have access to the copyrighted work. It added that should copyright owners wish to
add extra protection for their copyrighted works, there are no technological barriers to placing
specific digital rights management tools on such works. It stated, in fact, that digital certificatesare already in use on many handsets to protect copyrighted works.485
DRM for copyrighted content. In the discussions relating to the risks posed to preloaded
and downloaded content, MetroPCS was not alone in arguing that works other than the firmware,such as ringtones, wallpapers, etc., can be protected by separate DRM. Much was said about
whether the same access controls that protect the firmware ought to also protect such additional
preloaded and downloaded content, or whether copyright owners or wireless carriers wishing toensure that such content is protected should and could employ separate technological measures toprotect those works.
EFF stated that almost every phone chipset sold today is hardware-capable of
implementing file-specific digital rights management separate from the locks typically used to483

Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009,484

T Granick, 5/1/09, at 148.

485

C5B (MetroPCS) at 16.

at 7.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 144

prevent a mobile phone user from switching carriers.486 Because other carriers implement DRM
on inexpensive chipsets, EFF stressed that there are practical and cost effective ways to control
access to content (ringtones, wallpaper, etc.) while also permitting an exemption that does notinterfere with carrier-switching.487 Cricket added that copyrighted content is typically not
integrated in the same fashion as the core software and utilizes standard Open Mobile Alliance(“OMA”)488 digital rights management protection methodologies.489
Virgin Mobile responded by stating that it does not, in fact, use such DRM on any of its
low-cost handsets because of economic considerations. It further stated that its handset
engineering team evaluated the established industry standard specifications for DRM to determine
if any of its handsets could be said to meet any of those standards. Virgin Mobile commented
that OMA has released requirements for three separate types of DRM: (1) “Forward Lock”, (2)“Combined Delivery”, and (3) “Separate Delivery.” It stated that its low cost handsets do notmeet any of the three specifications. Virgin Mobile then asserted that it does not implement
Forward Lock, Combined Delivery and Separate Delivery because, among other reasons, content
delivered to its handsets are not packaged in a DRM-required format.490 It nevertheless noted thatit might be possible to use DRM on its handsets if significant engineering efforts were
undertaken, but nothing under the DMCA or copyright law requires it to do so.491
EFF asserted that other manufacturers that use chipsets identical to those found in Virgin
Mobile’s least expensive handset were able to practically and inexpensively protect their
copyrighted works without having to resort solely to the carrier lock. It concluded that this clearly486

Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009,487

Id. at 1.

at 2.

488

OMA is the leading industry forum on developing inter-operability standards for the mobile device
market. See http://www.openmobilealliance.org/
489

Post-Hearing Response of Cricket to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13,
2009, at 1. With respect to questions related to copyright concerns, CTIA asserted that technological protection isbased on usage rules imposed by the content provider that are enforced by the phone's operating system, or by
applications that are, in turn, protected by the operating system. It added that these technological protection measuresoften do not involve encryption, so the content remains “in the clear.” Post-Hearing Response of CTIA to Copyright
Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009, at 2.
490

Post-Hearing Response of Virgin Mobile to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones ofAugust 28, 2009, at 4.
491

Id. at 2.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 145

demonstrates that there are practical and cost-effective ways to protect copyrighted works using
DRM separate from carrier locks.492
Other Factors
In addition to the four enumerated factors, the statute includes an additional factor in
Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(v): “such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.” In the 2006
rulemaking, the Register stated that this “fifth factor” may be used to analyze exemption requests
where the anticircumvention provisions were relied upon mainly to protect business interests
rather than copyright interests.493 In the present rulemaking, several parties filed comments
raising a host of issues to consider as additional factors in the legal analysis.
Competition. Cricket asserted that mobile phone locks hurt competition because theyeffectively prohibit consumers from freely migrating to the wireless network of their choice. It
stated that some prospective consumers are less likely to subscribe to Cricket's service if they are
required to purchase a new wireless device solely for that purpose. Cricket concluded that it
would be more difficult for it to attract new customers and to contend with other wirelessproviders in an already competitive market unless the current exemption is renewed for anotherthree years.494 Pocket agreed with this premise, asserting that a new exemption would foster
competition in the communications industry, spur handset innovation, and lower costs for
consumers.495
Small Business Development. eBay commented that an identified benefit of online
marketplaces, like its own, is small business creation. It stated that the Internet provides
entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) with an opportunity to penetrateestablished markets and create new markets. It remarked that one of the categories on the eBay
platform in which individuals and SMEs can offer goods is “Cell Phones and PDAs.” It asserted
that used phones have a greater chance for resale, and will appeal to a greater pool of potential492

Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of September 18,

2009, at 2.
493

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 52.

494

R36 (Cricket) at 8-9.

495

R44 (Pocket) at 4-5.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 146

purchasers, if they are sold in an “unlocked” mode since the auction winner is then able to selectthe carrier of her choice. It believed that renewing the exemption will continue to foster
competition in the wireless marketplace, continue to create opportunities for SMEs, and benefit
consumers without adversely affecting copyrighted works. It concluded that a failure to renew
the exemption will work the opposite result of harming consumers, eBay, and SMEs.496
Communications Law and Policy. The Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (“PISC”)
submitted that granting the proposed exemptions would promote open access policies consideredby the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).497 PISC asserted that to deny the
exemption would frustrate communications policy by allowing wireless carriers to violate
consumer rights the government finds important. It concluded that in the absence of an
exemption, the DMCA would undermine policies designed to promote innovation, consumer
choice, and competition in the wireless industry. 498
Skype, as a software-based communications service, supports open access policies that
permit consumers to attach devices of their choice (“no locking”) to any wireless network and use
software applications of their choice on such devices (“no blocking”). It submitted that the
proposed exemptions (i.e., jailbreaking along with mobile phone unlocking) will ensure thatcopyright laws do not interfere with the “no blocking” and “no locking” open access principles. It
argued that enabling a consumer to use her unlocked mobile phone on any compatible networkand to use any legally-obtained software applications on her handset will ensure that she enjoys
the benefits of consumer choice and wireless competition.499

496

R27 (eBay) at 2.

497

R41 (PISC) at 3. In an effort to preserve consumer rights, the FCC imposed open access conditions
on the “C block” portion of the wireless spectrum sold at the 700MHz auction. These open access conditions require
service providers who operate wireless networks in the spectrum to permit consumers and businesses to develop anduse the devices and applications of their choice on those networks. PISC stated these open device and open
application requirements benefit consumers by empowering innovation and consumer choice. Id. at 2-3. CTIA
responded by stating that PISC has mischaracterized the FCC’s current position. It asserted that the Commission has
only applied the open access rules in very limited circumstances. It added that, in any event, it is unclear that the
FCC’s policies are inconsistent with the wireless industry’s current subsidy-based business model. T Joseph, 5/8/09,
at 163-164.
498

See also Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July13, 2009, at 1 (noting that the issue of phone portability continues to be of timely concern to the FCC and Congress,
especially with regard to handset exclusivity deals).
499

R52 (Skype) at 2-5.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 147

Environmental and Global Concerns. The Wireless Alliance stated that thousands ofmobile phones have been discarded every year because consumers are unable to use them if theyswitch wireless carriers. It asserted that the proposed exemptions would mitigate this “massive
environmental waste problem” because more mobile phones will be re-used or recycled.500
Finally, it asserted that the proposed exemptions could bridge the “digital divide” as unlocked
handsets can be exported to impoverished nations for the poor to use.
CTIA argued that the alleged benefits advanced by the proponents, such as phone
recycling, are being provided by wireless carriers regardless of an exemption.501 It commented
that the proponents point out the following benefits: (1) increased competition; (2) improved
consumer choice; (3) consumer cost savings; (4) a cleaner environment; (5) revenue earning
opportunity for charitable organizations; and (6) aid to developing nations. It asserted that none ofthese alleged “benefits” have anything to do with copyright, but instead “evidence a kitchen sinkattempt to promote free-riding business models.” It argued that such claims were irrelevant to the
exemption analysis and should be disregarded. CTIA claimed that consumer choice andaffordable wireless service were best promoted by ensuring that wireless carriers continue to havethe incentive to subsidize and promote the development of diverse handsets.
Trademarks. On the other hand, CTIA claimed that circumvention violates a wirelesscarrier’s trademark rights. It stated that when the protection measures on a device arecircumvented and the device is altered to connect to a different service, the trademarks of theoriginal service provider remain; as a result, anyone using the device is likely to be misled about
the identity of the service being provided.502
Subsidies. Virgin Mobile asserted that the proposed exemptions, if approved, would havean adverse effect on the prepaid mobile phone business that provides subsidized, moderately
500

C5D (Wireless Alliance) at 7. MetroPCS, as well as Pocket, also argued that reusing wirelesshandsets would also result in a cleaner environment.
501

R43 (CTIA) at 34-39. CTIA stated that, with or without an exemption, wireless carriers would beengaged in recycling efforts. It asserted that there are thousands of retail establishments that accept all makes andmodels of wireless phones and accessories for authorized recycling. It claimed that the proponents’ issue is notwhether circumvention is needed to foster handset recycling; it is whether circumvention is needed to help
proponents create a business out of recycling. Id. at 34. Virgin Mobile added that an exemption may preempt
specific recycling conditions that wireless carriers often desire, such as the removal of any trademarks or
copyrighted content from the phones subject to recycling. T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 163-64.
502

R43 (CTIA) at 34.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 148

priced handsets to lower-income, low-credit customers.503 It asserted that without effective mobile
phone locks, wireless carriers in this market niche cannot protect their reasonable investment. To
put the matter into context, it explained that its wireless handsets are provided at a “highly
subsidized retail price that is well below the per-unit cost”of acquiring the handsets frommanufacturers.504 It stated that this subsidy allows it to provide wireless service to lower-income
customers, who otherwise may not be able to afford the significant capital outlay to begin
wireless service or who may not have the credit history necessary to subscribe to other wirelessplans. It commented that the subsidized phone, in combination with the prepaid wireless plan,
allows many individuals to obtain a handset for emergency uses.
Virgin Mobile further stated that other carriers who provide wireless service under
postpaid plans with contractual term commitments may be able to provide unsecured handsets
upon purchase. It asserted that these wireless carriers have more flexibility as to whether andwhen to unlock various handsets; if a customer elects a longer term contractual plan, theseproviders can then adjust the subsidy applied for the handset. Virgin Mobile commented that
unlike those carriers who have the built-in ability to adopt various pricing plans, it still must rely
on locks as a means of supporting its subsidized mobile phone business model.505
EFF asserted that wireless carriers have locked both subsidized and non-subsidized
phones they sell. It argued that this practice illustrates that locking is part of a business strategy,
and not merely a matter of the carrier recouping subsidies on handsets it sells.506

503

R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 8-9.

504

Virgin Mobile stated that it pays manufacturers between $70 and $100 per handset, but sells them foras little as $15 to $20 per handset. It asserted that if the company were forced to sell its handsets without theircurrent locks, the retail prices of such devices would at least quintuple. T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 125.
505

R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 10-12. The subsidies issue was also addressed at the Copyright Office’s
hearing in Washington, D.C. In response to questions raised about whether the existing exemption reduced theindustry’s incentive to offer subsidized phones, CTIA counsel responded: “I don’t think you can conclude one way
or the other with respect to the past three years, and I do not have any specific evidence.” He then stated that mobile
phone locks are “one of the tools in the arsenal of the carrier to protect the subsidy and if the protection is weakened
sufficiently, you can expect that it would follow as a logical matter that they would reduce the amount that they arewilling to subsidize.” T Joseph, 5/8/09, at 145.
506

at 9.

Post-Hearing Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009,

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 149

Alternatives. CTIA argued that the availability of alternative means of access tocompeting wireless networks obviates the need for any exemption.507 It pointed out that, under thelaw, an exemption will not be granted if there are alternatives that will allow the consumer topursue the requested activity without circumvention. It stated that in this circumstance, thespecific purpose of the consumer is to connect a phone to a particular network. It asserted that thispurpose can be achieved without resorting to circumvention of access controls. In support of its
assertion, it stated the following: (1) CTIA members, such as T-Mobile and AT&T, will unlock
the phones of bona fide customers in appropriate circumstances; (2) in many cases, no “key” isneeded because there are carriers, such as Verizon Wireless, that do not lock the majority of themobile phones it offers to the public;508 and (3) a third (unnamed) major carrier will unlock acustomer's phone at the end of the customer's contract term and in certain other circumstances.509
CTIA added that if a consumer seeks to connect to a wireless carrier of her choice, there are
hundreds of phones that she can purchase in the marketplace.
EFF stated that CTIA’s statements about alternatives are misleading because they
obfuscate the facts. To counter the industry’s assertions, EFF provided the following informationon the current state of unlocking activities by various wireless carriers: (1) Verizon, due to a court
settlement, sells all its post-paid phones with SPC in “unlocked” mode and freely distributes
information about how to connect these devices to its wireless network; (2) Sprint is subject to an
identical settlement, but it has not gone into effect because all appeals are not yet resolved (it will
now unlock a phone at the end of the two year contract or upon payment of an early terminationfee); (3) T-Mobile provides unlock codes to customers that have had 90 days of active service andmeet a variety of unspecified requirements (but customers are not informed of this policy); and(4) AT&T (combined with Cingular) does not unlock its handsets (although class action507

R43 (CTIA) at 26-29.

508

CTIA stated, for example, that Verizon Wireless does not lock the majority (96%) of its postpaid
phones. Post-Hearing Response of CTIA to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009, at
4. EFF noted that carriers in some instances implement SPC not to prevent customers from switching carriers, but toensure that customers do not inadvertently change these settings since, if such settings are changed, the handset may
not work on the original carrier’s network. EFF stated that is why Verizon Wireless sets its SPC code to all zeros andadvertises the code rather than have no code at all; in this way, post-paid Verizon handsets are sold “unlocked,” butcustomers are protected from accidently modifying important network settings. Response of EFF to Copyright
Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009, at 3.
509

2009, at 4.

Post-Hearing Response of CTIA to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13,

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 150

challenges regarding its practices have been pending for more than six years).510
Cricket implied that CTIA ignores the needs and desires of most mobile phone consumers.
First, it stated that many consumers cannot afford to purchase a new phone, no matter how
inexpensive the handset. Second, it asserted that a consumer has a vested interest in keeping herphone with all of her personal data and presets programmed in. Finally, it commented that
consumers like to keep their existing telephone numbers on the phone that they already have,rather than switch phones and attempt to port their existing numbers to the new device.511
Conclusions regarding the Section 1201(a)(1)(C) factors. As was the case in 2006, theRegister finds that the four factors enumerated in Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(i)-(iv) are neutral in thiscontext. First, with respect to the second and third factors, nothing in the record indicates that thedecision whether to designate the proposed class, in this context, would affect the availability ofworks for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes or impinge upon the ability
to engage in criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. With respect
to the first and fourth factors, there was extensive discussion concerning whether permitting
circumvention of software locks under the circumstances presented here would adversely affectthe availability of and the market for preloaded and downloaded content. For the reasons that
follow, the Register cannot conclude that there would be such an adverse effect.
While Virgin Mobile claims that the value of proprietary applications and downloaded
content could be compromised if this class of works is once again designated under Section
1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), it does not adequately substantiate how this might be the case, and there isreason to be skeptical.
First, there is absolutely no evidence demonstrating that copyright owners of content
found on mobile phones have been harmed by the current regulation designating this class ofworks. No mobile phone provider could clearly articulate how the exclusive rights granted to510

Response of EFF to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July 13, 2009, at 8-9.
AT&T has recently settled these pending class action suits. The settlement provides that AT&T agrees to give its
eligible current and former customers codes that unlock all AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and AT&T mobility handsets,
except for the iPhone and any handset that AT&T mobility introduces or has introduced for sale pursuant to acontract with a handset manufacturer that provides for an exclusivity period of 10 months or longer. Unlock codes
for AT&T handsets will be provided to eligible postpaid customers who have completed a minimum of 90 days ofactive service and who are in good standing and current in their payments at the time of the request. See
http://www.attlockinglawsuits.com/pdf/meolinot.pdf
511

T Inglish, 5/8/09, at 85.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 151

copyright owners for such content have been infringed because of the regulation. If the existing
regulation has had deleterious effects on the availability of, or market for, the kinds ofcopyrighted content discussed above, presumably there would be examples to support suchclaims. Opponents of the proposal presented no such examples.
Moreover, the case has not been made that granting the proponents’ requests will likely
lead to infringing uses. CTIA and Virgin Mobile did not make a persuasive case that consumers
are engaged in an infringing activity when they use or access content found on their existingphones after switching to a new carrier. As noted by the proponents, it is unlikely that
infringement occurs when a mobile phone owner simply uses her phone, embedded withauthorized content, on another wireless network. In this instance, the content has not been copied
to a new device and the copyright owner has realized the economic benefit of the original license
for use of such works. The mobile phone consumer, then, having already paid for and incurred thebenefit of the license, can continue to use such copyrighted works on the mobile phone she owns.
The same can be said of post-sale downloads. The mobile phone user has purchased suchcontent, thus remunerating the copyright owner for her creation, and may use it on the device
regardless of which mobile carrier the mobile phone owner uses.
Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the current regulation has impeded or will
impede technological innovation and the creation of new content. Mobile phone providers,
including Virgin Mobile as well as Apple with its iPhone, have broken new ground by providing
consumers thousands of new applications since 2006. Competitive pressures and consumer
demand will likely lead to even more novel applications in the future.
The record evidence also demonstrates that digital rights management software, apartfrom carrier locks, is available to protect discrete content found on, or downloaded to, mobile
phone devices. Virgin Mobile apparently has made a conscious decision not to include separate
security for content found on the phones it sells to the public. Virgin Mobile may have had soundbusiness reasons for this decision and it certainly is not obligated to protect such content
separately. However, in light of the availability of the alternatives discussed above and in light of
the fact that Virgin Mobile has, for the past three years, operated while the existing regulation has
been in place, the consequences of that decision, if any, appear to be of Virgin Mobile’s own
making and Virgin Mobile has apparently concluded that it can live with those consequences.
On this point, it is noteworthy that other wireless carriers have chosen to implement two
separate technological protection measures, one for copyrighted content and another for thephone's operating system. Such separate measures would appear to be sensible in situations

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 152

where permitting a user to circumvent a technological protection that prevents the user fromswitching networks may also have the effect of removing protection from other content on thedevice. Taking such action would be particularly prudent where there is concern about access toparticular works and an exemption currently exists, as is currently the case. Given that Virgin
Mobile has freely chosen not to separately protect content on its devices despite the existence ofthe 2006 exemption, its actions appear to speak louder than its words. Under these circumstances,
it is not credible to argue that permitting circumvention for purposes of using a mobile phone on
another network puts other copyrighted content on the mobile phone seriously at risk.

It is important to emphasize again that wireless providers, like Virgin Mobile, have notdemonstrated that they have been in any way harmed by the existing exemption.512 In fact, CTIA
stated that at least 55 lawsuits have been successful against resellers based on causes of action
other than violation of Section 1201(a)(1). Although copyright owners are not required to prove
harm, the absence of any cognizable harm where an exemption has been in place for thepreceding three years is relevant to the overall balancing of interests. Speculation about future
harm must be reconciled with the absence of any documented harm in a situation where therequested exemption is already in place.513
In any event, the four factors enumerated in Section 1201(a)(1)(C) do not weigh either infavor of or against designating the proposed class of works. The software locks do not appear to
be deployed to protect the interests of the copyright owner or the value or integrity of the
copyrighted work; rather, they are used by wireless carriers to limit the ability of subscribers to512

R43 (CTIA) at 5. Between June 2005 and June 2009, the wireless industry grew from 194.4 million
subscribers to 276.6 million subscribers. Wireless penetration, measured by percentage of the total U.S. population
over the same time period, increased from 66% to 89%. See CTIA, 100 Wireless Facts,
http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/AID/10323. (Last visited 5/5/10.) The existing exemption has notstunted the growth of the wireless industry nor has it otherwise had an adverse effect on the wireless phone businessmodel.
513

In past proceedings, the Register has considered the lack of evidence that an existing exemption harmed
rights-holders or affected the market for the relevant class of works as “instructive” or “informative” factors
militating in favor of renewing the exemption. Such an evaluation has occurred in those circumstances where rightsholders have opposed the renewal of the exemption. See 2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 30(“In assessing the likelihood of harm to filtering software that would result from an exemption, the absence of any
identifiable harm that resulted from the previous exemption is informative. While there is no burden on the
opponents of exemption to show that a similar preexisting exemption has caused harm, silence on the issue may raise
inferences.”); see also, 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 35 (with regard to renewing the
exemption concerned with computer programs protected by dongles, the Register stated: “It remains instructive thatan exemption has been in place for the past six years, but opponents did not cite any evidence of harm resulting fromthat exemption, despite the proponent’s evidence that the exemption has been put to use.”).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 153

switch to other carriers, a business decision that has little to do with the interests protected undercopyright law.514
As was the case three years ago, because it appears that the opposition to designating the
proposed class is based primarily on the desires of wireless carriers to preserve an existing
business model that has little if anything to do with protecting works of authorship, it isappropriate to address the additional factor set forth in Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(v). However, thearguments made by the commenters and discussed above under the heading of “Other Factors”
are unrelated to copyright interests. As such, they are not germane to the matters Congress wasconcerned with when it drafted Section 1201(a)(1) over a decade ago. Consumer choice andenhanced competition in the wireless marketplace, along with the other noted benefits, may bevalid arguments to make before other administrative agencies, such as the FCC, but are inapt
here, in a proceeding conducted by the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress, whichhave no responsibilities for, and no particular expertise in, such matters, and where the purpose of
the proceeding is to address copyright law and policy concerns.
Speaking of other factors, the wireless industry has raised the possibility of trademark
infringement as a reason to deny the exemption requests. Trademark violations are a valid
concern, especially in the bulk reseller context, but this is not the forum in which to litigate orotherwise address such claims. Moreover, wireless carriers have obtained relief for trademark
infringement against bulk resellers of their mobile phones.515 As such, trademark concerns will
not stand in the way of granting the exemption requests.
Moreover, the impact an exemption may have on the mobile phone subsidy model is not a
proper factor that should be taken into account in the analysis. Here, Virgin Mobile has cogently
explained how device locks protect its investment in the mobile phones it sells to the public. It is
certainly understandable for wireless carriers to implement a variety of measures to retain theircustomer base and protect their profit margin. It may well be that, as Virgin Mobile asserts, thesubsidy permits wireless carriers like itself to facilitate wireless service to low-income
consumers.516 But in this context, it is apparent that the main function of the software lock is to514

These are essentially the same conclusions the Register reached in 2006. See 2006 Recommendation of
the Register of Copyrights at 50-51.
515

See, e.g., Virgin Mobile USA, LLC v. Blue Oceans Distrib., LLC, No. CV06-511-S-EJL, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 10783 (D. Idaho Feb. 14, 2007); TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dixon, 475 F. Supp.2d 1236 (M.D. Fla.
2007); TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitcell Corp., No. 0722249- Civ., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41955 (S.D. Fla. 2008)[all cited in R51 (Virgin Mobile) at 25 fn. 54]. See also T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 168, 170-73.
516

See T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 124.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 154

support a business model. The purpose of this rulemaking is not to protect such an interest or tomaintain the profitability of a particular corporation or industry. Instead, the task here is toascertain whether the use of access controls in this manner has an adverse effect on the ability ofusers of the proposed class to make non-infringing uses of works in that class, while also avoiding
harm to copyright owners insofar as the prohibition is protecting their copyright interests in theirworks of authorship. As noted throughout, the ability of a mobile phone consumer to use herphone on alternative wireless networks, a noninfringing act, is indeed adversely affected. And, no
opponent of the proposal has persuasively argued that the prohibition on circumvention is, in thiscontext, protecting a copyright owner’s interest in a work of authorship and that permitting
circumvention for the purposes of switching mobile networks poses a serious risk to copyrightowners’ interests in protecting their works.
Finally, the record evidence demonstrates that there are no real alternatives for the relief
an exemption would provide. First, wireless industry unlocking “efforts” do not adequately
permit the non-infringing use desired by the proponents. The fact that Verizon now sells its
postpaid mobile phones in unlocked mode hardly resolves the issue. There are still legacy phones
connected to the Verizon wireless network that are locked and cannot be used on an alternative
wireless network. Further, according to the record, AT&T, a major wireless carrier with millionsof subscribers, still sells its phones in locked mode. Moreover, the evidence in the record suggeststhat most mobile phone carriers make it difficult for customers to switch networks. It seems clearthat the primary purpose of the locks is to keep consumers bound to their existing networks. Thisobservation is not a criticism of the mobile phone industry’s business plans and practices, but
simply a recognition of existing circumstances.
e.

Defining the new class of works

Having concluded that the prohibition on circumvention of access controls does have an
adverse effect on the ability of an owner of a wireless telephone handsets to engage innoninfringing uses of firmware in order to connect to a wireless telephone communication
network other than the network of the wireless carrier that sold the handset to the owner, andhaving concluded that on balance, the factors set forth in Section 1201(a)(1)(C) favor thedesignation of a class of works that would permit handset owners to circumvent access controls inorder to engage in such noninfringing uses, it is now necessary to determine how that class ofworks should be defined.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 155

In assessing the proper scope of the class of works, it is appropriate to consider various
formulations offered by both proponents and opponents of the proposed class, as well as concerns
expressed about bulk resellers. NTIA’s positions on the issues are explained and addressed aswell. The language of the new class is then presented. The discussion ends with an examinationof the relationship between contractual obligations, Section 1201(a)(2), and designation of the
new class.
i.

CTIA’s Proposed Class of Works

CTIA asserted that the proper focus of the Section 1201(a)(1) rulemaking is on individual,
noncommercial conduct. It added that the mobile phone industry’s most significant concern iscircumvention by phone traffickers and services that are attempting to free-ride on handset
subsidies. It stated that its members do not foresee a situation in which they would bring a Section
1201 action against a bona fide individual customer who circumvented a handset lock solely inorder to use his or her own phone on another service. For that reason, CTIA commented that it
would not object to a narrowly targeted exemption to permit such circumvention.517
CTIA further commented that “it is essential that the exemption be carefully limited sothat it cannot be used to foster destructive free-riding commercial activity, undermine exclusive
distribution agreements, or facilitate bulk theft of handset subsidies through trafficking in new
subsidized phones.”518 On this point, it asserted that certain parties have attempted to misuse theexisting exemption to argue that the circumvention of handset locks is federal policy, preempting
all other possible claims. It noted, for example, that MetroPCS has sued Virgin Mobile for adeclaratory judgment, claiming that the 2006 exemption has broad effect and import, protecting
its MetroFLASH service from a variety of causes of action.519 It added that any such exemption
should not condone breach of contract or allow circumvention that gives access to copyrighted
works, beyond the works needed to allow use of the phone on the chosen network.

517

See R43 (CTIA) at 44.

518

Id.

519
Id., citing Complaint, MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., Case No. 08CV1658-D(N.D. Tex. Filed Sept. 19, 2008) According to CTIA, MetroPCS argued that the purpose of the 2006 exemption “isto ensure that customers have the freedom to switch wireless communications service providers” and that Virgin
Mobile’s user contracts “are thus pre-empted by the exemption in the DMCA.” Id. ¶¶ 39, 40. It added that MetroPCS
made a similar preemption claim with respect to tortious interference with contractual relations and prospective
business advantage. Id. ¶¶ 47, 53.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 156

CTIA submitted the following language as an alternative to the proponents’ exemption
proposals:
Computer programs in the form of firmware in wireless telephone handsets that restrict
the handset from connecting to a wireless telephone communications network, whencircumvention is accomplished by an individual customer of a wireless service provider
for the sole noncommercial purpose, and with the sole effect, of lawfully connecting to awireless telephone communications network or service other than that of the service
provider, provided that (i) the individual complies with all of his or her contractual
obligations to the service provider, and (ii) the individual does not thereby obtain accessto works protected under this title beyond those necessary to connect to such a network orservice.520
EFF stated that CTIA has tacitly admitted that an exemption is warranted. It then opinedthat the only open question here is the scope of the new exemption. In this context, it believedthat CTIA’s narrow noncommercial language, as proposed above, would frustrate the intent of the
exemption the Wireless Alliance originally proposed. It asserted that CTIA’s formulation likely
would not help mobile phone recyclers or the average consumer who would like to switch
wireless providers using their existing device.521
EFF also voiced concerns about CTIA’s contractual obligations clause. It stated that it
would be difficult to enforce against mobile phone recyclers because, as firms taking phones
given to them by individual consumers, they are not privy to a contract with a wireless carrier. It
further stated that it would be difficult for courts to analyze Section 1201 claims to determine
whether to grant motions to dismiss without performing fact-finding on the contractual issues. It
added that such issues related to CTIA’s proposal are not the interests that the copyright law
seeks to vindicate; rather, they are related to business model interests that the Register recognized
are separate from the Section 1201 stated interests.522
Discussion. The Register finds that the exemption language proposed by CTIA is too
limiting to be adopted in its present form. Its dense wording is overly restrictive and imposes too
many caveats for it to be of much use to its intended beneficiaries. For example, it isinappropriate to require the owner of the handset to have complied with all of his or her
520
R43 (CTIA) at 44. Virgin Mobile stated that it would not oppose an exemption like the one proposedby CTIA even though it still believed that no exemption is warranted because the proponents have not met theirburden of proof. Post-Hearing Response of Virgin Mobile to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones ofJuly 13, 2009, at 16.
521

T Granick, 5/1/09, at 141-42.

522

Id. at 142.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 157

contractual obligations to the service provider; the focus in this rulemaking is on the ability toengage in noninfringing uses, not on whether a person otherwise qualified to take advantage ofthe exemption has breached any contractual obligations. Moreover, the proposed requirement thatthe individual “does not obtain access to works protected under this title beyond those necessary
to connect to such a network or service” is overbroad and could render the exemption useless. A
wireless carrier that chooses to use the same access controls both to deny users the ability toswitch carriers and to protect other copyrighted works stored on the device would place the user
in a situation whereby the mere act of circumvention in order to switch carriers would
automatically give that person access to the other works as well. Moreover, the proposed
language would not permit a person who has purchased a ringtone or a copy of some othercopyrighted work that is stored on her mobile phone to continue to gain access to that work after
she has changed carriers. The opponents of the proposed class have not presented a persuasive
case that someone who has switched carriers should be denied access to copies of copyrighted
works that she had purchased prior to switching carriers.
However, to the extent that CTIA is attempting to address concerns about bulk reselling of
new subsidized phones, the Register supports language in an exemption that would exclude suchactivity from its ambit. As is discussed below, bulk resellers would not be able to take advantageof the new class of works because it would be restricted to cover only used wireless telephonehandsets. This limiting language is explained in more detail below. Based on the preceding, theRegister declines to adopt CTIA’s alternative language.
To further allay the concerns expressed by CTIA, and to address its comments about thecharacterization of the 2006 exemption by MetroPCS in its litigation with Virgin Mobile, someclarification is in order. Here, the Register notes that the 2006 class, and the new one
recommended herein, are both narrow, apply only to claims under Section 1201(a)(1), and do notestablish a general federal policy of ensuring that customers have the freedom to switch wirelesscommunications service providers. The designation of the classes, both new and old, simply
reflect a conclusion that unlocking a mobile phone to be used on another wireless network does
not per se constitute copyright infringement and that Section 1201(a)(1), a statute intended toprotect copyright interests, should not be used to prevent mobile phone owners from engaging insuch non-infringing activity.
On the other hand, the Register does not accept the proposition that the exemption should
be available only when it is used for “noncommercial purposes.” A person or entity that engages
in the commercial activity of purchasing or obtaining by donations used mobile phones from
actual users of those phones and “recycling” them for reuse by other persons should not beRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 158

precluded from taking advantage of the designation of this class of works merely because there isa “commercial purpose.” As long as the other requirements of the class are met (i.e., as discussed
below, as long as the handset is used, the person engaging in the circumvention is the owner ofthe handset because she has purchased or otherwise acquired it from the original owner, and thecircumvention is performed solely to connect to a wireless telephone communication network),
there is no reason why such activity should be excluded from the scope of the class.523
However, one significant limitation on the activities of such “recyclers” should be noted.
As discussed above, in order to permit the use of certain handsets on another network, it isnecessary (in some cases) to modify the firmware to the extent that what is created may amount toa derivative work. Such activity would violate the copyright owner’s exclusive right “to prepare
derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.”524 As discussed above, the making of a
derivative work is privileged in certain circumstances under Section 117’s privilege for making“adaptations” of computer programs. However, that privilege includes a significant limitation:such adaptations may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.525
Thus, a recycler who prepares such an adaptation may not transfer ownership of the copyof the adapted computer program to anybody else without the authorization of the copyrightowner. As a practical matter, that means that the recycler cannot transfer ownership of thehandset, which contains the copy of the adapted computer program, to anybody else without the
copyright owner’s authorization. Such a transfer would be an act of infringement, disqualifying
the recycler from taking advantage of the designation of this class of works.526 Therefore, thedesignation of this class offers no benefit to recyclers who make and distribute adaptations of thecomputer program itself if those adaptations implicate the derivative work right.

523

In addition, as in the past, the regulation designating the classes of works includes the general
qualification that the prohibition against circumvention “shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing usesof the following … classes of copyrighted works.” As discussed below, some “recyclers” may be excluded from thescope of the class if they modify the firmware in such a fashion that they are creating derivative works and thentransfer it to anyone else without the permission of the copyright owner.
524

17 U.S.C. § 106(2).

525

17 U.S.C. § 117(b).

526

The recycler would be disqualified because the proposed regulation, like the existing regulation,
provides that “the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access tocopyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing usesof the following six classes of copyrighted works.” 37 C.F.R. § 201.40(b). Thus, a person who engages in an
infringing use – such as the transfer of a copy of an adaptation of a computer program without the authorization of
the copyright owner – of a computer program within the class of works would not be sheltered from liability forcircumvention under § 1201(a)(1)(A).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

ii.

June 11, 2010

Page 159

Proponents’ proposed exemptions and the new class of works

In their initial comments filed with the Office, the proponents proposed the followingclass of works
MetroPCS (5B):
Computer programs that operate wireless telecommunications handsets whencircumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling wirelesstelephones to connect to a wireless telephone communication network.
Pocket (5C):"Mobile Network Connection Programs." Computer programs in the form of
firmware or software that enable' mobile communication handsets to connect
to a wireless communication network, when circumvention is accomplished forthe sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless communication network.
The Wireless Alliance (5D):
Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephonehandsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, whencircumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to awireless telephone communication network, regardless of commercial motive.
Upon a review of the initial exemptions proposed by the proponents, Pocket realized thatthe proposed classes of works regarding mobile phone unlocking were similar in many respects.
Pocket conferred with the parties who had proposed exemptions 5B and 5D in an effort toharmonize these classes. Based on a common agreement and understanding, Pocket and the other
Class 5 parties then submitted the following proposed class of works (the “Proposed HarmonizedClass”) for approval by the Register and Librarian:Computer programs that enable wireless communications devices to connect to wirelesscommunications networks when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of
enabling such devices to lawfully connect to wireless communications networks.
This, they stated, is different from the existing exemption as illustrated by the following
redline comparing the new proposed exemption with the 2006 exemption:
Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wirelesscommunications devices telephone handsets to connect to a wirelessRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 160

telephone communications networks, when circumvention isaccomplished for the sole purpose of enabling such devices to lawfully
connect to a wireless telephone communications networks.
According to Pocket, the Proposed Harmonized Class does not fundamentally change thescope of the 2006 exemption. It added that most of the differences between this Proposed
Harmonized Class and its initial Class 5C proposal were intended to eliminate ambiguity andreduce the possibility of unintended consequences. 527 Pocket, however, remained cautious aboutsome of the differences, and stated its belief that it is imperative that the resulting Proposed
Harmonized Class be given the proper interpretation. It stated the following in support of the
proposed exemption’s new phraseology.
The phrase “in the form of firmware or software.” Pocket commented on the deletion ofthis phrase as reflected in the Proposed Harmonized Class. It stated that while a device’s“computer programs” are essentially the same as its “firmware or software,” one or the other ofthese phrases should be deleted from the Class in order to eliminate repetition and promote clarityof scope. Pocket stated that it is worth repeating that the words “or software” had been proposed
previously in light of the recognition that removal of a device lock does not always require accessto what is generally understood as the firmware of a device.528
The phrase “wireless communication devices.” According to Pocket, it had recommended
that the term “wireless communication” be used in the Proposed Harmonized Class because it iscommon nomenclature in the wireless device marketplace. With regard to the term “devices,”
rather than telephone handsets, it stated that the clarification is intended to ensure that consumers
can still seek out unlocking solutions despite the fact that their particular hardware may nottechnically qualify as a handset. It also stated that the majority of wireless devices would likely
qualify as handsets in the strictest sense, but this understanding has been rapidly changing with527

R44 (Pocket) at 2-3. MetroPCS, who has joined with Pocket in advocating the revised language,stated that the “Proposed Harmonized Class” is intended to: (1) take into consideration some of the changes
proposed by the other proponents; (2) clarify the language of the proposed exemption based upon the experience ofMetroPCS in the wireless industry; (3) reduce ambiguity surrounding the Class; and (4) reduce the possibility ofunintended consequences that may arise. R31 (MetroPCS) at 6-7. Cricket submits that the proposed language
provides added clarity while continuing to capture the core elements of the exemption adopted by the Copyright
Office in 2006. R36 (Cricket) at 12.
528

R44 (Pocket) at 2, 6. (noting that “Handset locking measures are included not just by a handset's
manufacturer [hence, in what is classically considered the firmware], but also in programs utilizing more volatilememory such as software added in the handset flash memory. The broader, more accurate wording is intended tocapture all types of programming in the class of literary works where locks are included to control access to theprograms that operate the handset.”)Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 161

the evolving nature of wireless technology in recent years. It commented that several basic
electronic devices, such as pagers, are now incorporating modules that exchange data through awireless network. It further commented that laptop computers remain at the forefront of this trend,with a number of carriers now providing continuous data links via wireless broadband cards thatare locked to a given carrier. Pocket concluded that because the wireless communicationsindustry is quickly changing to address unmet needs, the recharacterization of “mobile
communication handsets,” in its initial exemption request, to “wireless communication devices,”in the Proposed Harmonized Class, would allow the exemption to evolve as the industry
continues to innovate.529
The word “sole.” Pocket stated that the word “sole” in the 2006 Exemption has been asource of unintended consequences, as district courts have occasionally held that mobile phone
unlocking would not be exempt if a financial motive was present in the pursuit of connecting adevice to an alternative wireless network. It explained that unlocking will involve some financial
incentive in addition to the motive of connecting to another network. It argued that it was neverintended that the word “sole” be interpreted to defeat the 2006 Exemption just because financial
motives exist in addition to other lawful motives. Pocket asserted that deletion of the word “sole”
addresses this concern.530
The word “lawfully.” Pocket has sought clarification of the term “lawfully” as it is used in
the Proposed Harmonized Class. Specifically, it sought a determination from the Register and the
Librarian that “lawful” purposes encompass all activities that either do not infringe or are fairuses of the copyrights in the device’s programming.531

NTIA’s Comments. The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications andInformation has advised the Register that NTIA believes the Librarian should extend the current
exemption for the next three year cycle. In support, NTIA noted that consumers have filed529

Id. at 7. Joint Creators neither opposed nor supported renewal of the existing class. However, they
opposed efforts to expand the existing class. They stated, for example, that any class should continue to explicitly
state that it is only applicable to “wireless telephone handsets” and “wireless telephone communication networks”
rather than the broader terminology proposed. R46 (Joint Creators) at 41.
530

531

R44 (Pocket) at 8.

Id. In response to the parties’ original proposed classes, Joint Creators argued that the proponents did
not adequately justify the removal of the term “lawful.” They commented that the legislative history of Section
1201(a)(1)(B) makes clear that “the focus must remain” on only granting exemptions for “lawful uses” ofcopyrighted works. R46 (Joint Creators) at 40. The Register finds that this matter is now moot as the parties have
now re-inserted the term in their revised language.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 162

comments requesting that the current exemption be renewed.532 It then noted, in agreement with
the Register’s 2006 recommendation, that “the software locks are access controls that adversely
affect consumers to make non-infringing use of the software on their cell phones.”533
NTIA did not support any of the proposed changes to the existing exemption. It stated that
it was persuaded by opponents’ argument that the narrowly tailored language recommended by
the Register in 2006 prevents unlawful practices by those that would misuse the exemption forcommercial purposes.534 NTIA also asserted that the underlying purpose of the current exemption
is to permit consumers adversely affected by the access control to unlock their phone and switch
networks.535 It then noted that its endorsement of extending the current exemption should not be
construed as support for commercial application of this exemption. It stated that it only supports
the opportunity for consumers to switch networks once contractual obligations are met withcurrent wireless carriers or where the consumer has purchased the phone outright.536 NTIA
concluded by stating that to “the extent service providers resist unlocking phones for these
consumers, the continuation of this exemption is encouraged.”537
The Register’s staff had further discussions with NTIA and inquired whether the Assistant
Secretary would support an exemption permitting businesses and other entities that engage inrecycling and resale to legally circumvent TPMs so that mobile phones may be used on different
532

NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 9, citing comments of Jonathan Flerchinger, at 1.

533

Id., citing 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 76.

534

Id., citing comments of CTIA at 8. It also referenced current case law on this point. Id., citing
TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dixon, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1238 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (holding that the “exemption does
not absolve the Defendants of liability for their violations of the DMCA . . .” and that the narrowly tailored languageof the exemption was intended for the “sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communications
network.”). NTIA then stated that this reasoning was adopted by a subsequent court on a similar set of facts raisedby the same plaintiff. NTIA letter of November 4, 2009, at 9, citing TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. GSM Group, Inc.,
555 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2008).
535

NTIA noted that “adhering to this principle more closely aligns the process to the purpose for which
DMCA was enacted. “ NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 9, citing comments of CTIA at 5-9.
536
NTIA noted the wireless carriers’ prediction that inexpensive subsidized phones would disappear if
the exemption remained in place. NTIA stated that it is not persuaded that this will occur as it has not happened in
the last three years with the current exemption in place. NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 9.
537

NTIA also noted that within one month of the establishment of the original exemption in 2006, severalof the major carriers announced that they each would unlock their phones to be used on other networks. See id. at 9,
citing A Cellular Sea Change, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 1, 2007, at A14; Leslie Cauley, AT&T Cellphone Network Wide
Open, USA TODAY, Dec. 5, 2007, at 7A; Carolyn Y. Johnson, Big Wireless Carriers Get Set to Free the Phone,
BOSTON GLOBE, Mar. 28, 2008, at A1. But, it noted, popular smartphones that have been introduced since the 2006
exemption have remained locked. NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 9-10, citing Cauley, at 7A. NTIA supports
the exemption as long as it benefits consumers.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 163

wireless networks. NTIA then followed up its earlier correspondence with an additional letter tothe Register on this and other points related to the scope of the class of works for mobile phone
unlocking.538 NTIA recognized the broad desirability of making it easier for not-for-profit entities
to provide used mobile phones to aid workers and the U.S. military and for certain green uses,
such as recycling. NTIA then recommended that the Register provide a more detailed analysis
emphasizing the intended scope of the class of works to include noninfringing uses of the
exemption, but specifically exclude bulk resellers and other similar commercial uses. It statedthat the use of the term “used,” as distinct from “new” products in the proposed exemption would
help clarify the Register’s position and prevent abuses of the exemption by bulk resellers. NTIA
also stated its concern about the inclusion of the phrase “by the owner of the copy of the computer
program” in the language of the new class of works.539 NTIA believed that consumers could
misunderstand what rights the possessor of the used handset would have under the exemption.
Therefore, NTIA recommended deleting this language from the text of the proposed class ofworks.540
Discussion. The Register recommends that the Librarian adopt a reformulation of theexisting class of works, as embodied below. The Register makes this recommendation because astrict application of the statutory language of Section 1201 would result in a finding that one who
circumvents the software lock on a mobile phone in order to connect to an alternative wirelessnetwork is engaging in unlawful circumvention of an access control. However, that Moreover, theact of circumvention is made in order to engage in conduct which cannot reasonably beunderstood to be an infringing activity. Finally, copyright interests, generally, do not appear tobe adversely affected when such circumvention takes place.541

The Register recommends the following regulatory language to describe the class ofworks:

538

Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, UnitedStates Department of Commerce, to Marybeth Peter, Register of Copyrights, April 16, 2010 (“NTIA Follow-up
Letter”).
539

For an explanation of that language, see the discussion infra at pp. 167, 169-170.

540

Id.

541

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 51.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 164

Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable usedwireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network,when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program
solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access tothe network is authorized by the operator of the network.
The proposed new language would modify the original class approved by the Librarian in2006 by introducing new terms that address concerns expressed by various parties and attempts tostrike a careful balance. Approval of the new class will still permit circumvention of mobile
phone locks in order to switch to another wireless carrier, but it should also curtail thecommercial exploitation of the exemption by bulk resellers of new cellphones.
This new language differs from the language of the 2006 class of works as follows
Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable usedwireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication
network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of thecomputer program accomplished for the solely in order to purpose of lawfully
connecting to a wireless telephone communication network and access to the
network is authorized by the operator of the network.
The Register has considered the specific modifications proposed by the participants in thisproceeding and has reached the following conclusions. First, the Register does not believe thatthe formulation “Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software,” is unduly repetitious
or unclear. “Computer programs” are generally understood to be a subset of the class of literaryworks protected under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, and therefore “computer programs” isan appropriate starting point in defining the class of works. The existing class is confined tocomputer programs in the form of firmware; however, the proponents expressed concern that insome instances the pertinent computer programs may not be stored in what is “part of the classic
firmware of a Device” and that a “trend to store locks in software that is not part of the firmware
is expected to continue.”542 While the solution offered by the proponents was to remove thereference to firmware, the same result can be accomplished – and arguably with more clarity – bysimply adding the words “or software” to make clear that the computer program may be in theform of firmware or software.

542

R 44 (Pocket) at 6-7. See also C5C (Pocket) at 1; R31 (MetroPCS) at 7.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 165

Second, the Register recognizes that the term “wireless communications devices” may be
a more current descriptor of the hardware subject to the exemption than the term “telephonehandsets” that has been part of the 2006 exemption. It does reflect the advances in technology
over the course of the last three years and is comparable to language used in industry
conversations543 and at the Federal Communications Commission.544 However, the proponents
have not made an adequate evidentiary showing as to why the sweeping change is necessary at
this point in time.
In any event, the objective of the exemption, from the Register’s standpoint, is to permit a
consumer to use a phone on a network other than the network of the wireless carrier thatoriginally sold the phone. The principal function of the phone that is of concern here is “voice”
communication and the exemption should facilitate this use.545 A case has not been made that
other devices, such as laptops or beepers, should be brought into the scope of the exemption
because it has not been demonstrated that they are used primarily for this purpose.546 Nor has it
been shown that similar access controls have been placed on such devices. However, theexemption would apply to smartphones, such as Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s Blackberry, because
they provide access to “voice” service, even though they also offer a penumbra of other usefulfunctions (i.e., mobile broadband data service, downloadable applications, and e-mail). As such,the language of the exemption should refer only to “telephone handsets” as the term has beenstated and understood in this context. Nevertheless, the phrase “wireless telephone
communications network” has been shortened to “wireless telecommunications network” inrecognition of the fact that virtually all current wireless networks handle more than just voiceservice, and to avoid any implication that a network that offers more than telephone
communications is beyond the scope of the class. While this change was not explicitly proposedby any party, it makes sense for the current exemption to reflect the modern telecommunications
landscape.
543

See, e.g., http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/advisory/jac/pdf/pcia-jac.pdf (Last visited 5/5/10.) (Commentsof PCIA/The Wireless Infrastructure Association at 2, filed with the FCC).
544
See, e.g., https://esupport.fcc.gov/form1088/consumer.do (Last visited 5/6/10.) (The FCC uses theterm “wireless communications devices” in its Form 1088 which concerns “Junk Faxes and Telemarketing.”).
545

The wireless telecommunications industry generates revenue from two principal services: phone calls($116 billion) and text messaging (roughly $12 billion). See Scott Woolley, Big Talk, FORBES, November 16,
2009, at 96.
546

On this point, the Register agrees with CTIA when it stated that “Pocket never bothers even to assertthat beepers and text devices contain firmware or software that directs them to a particular wireless carrier, or thatthe prohibition on circumventing such locks has harmed or will harm anyone.” See R43 (CTIA) at 19.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 166

Third, the Register cannot approve of the removal of the language “sole purpose” in the
new class of works. The use of that language in the 2006 exemption was purposefully intended toensure that it would not extend to cases where the circumvention is accomplished not only inorder to permit the handset to be used on another network, but also in order to remove restrictions
on other copyrighted content stored on the handset, that is, to permit redistribution of copies ofsuch content. Such a “dual purpose”circumvention would not be within the scope of thedesignated class. However, the “sole purpose” language was not intended to address whether the
person engaging in circumvention might be acting in a commercial capacity. The discussion in
the Register’s 2006 recommendation was silent with respect to commercial motivation.
To clarify the intended scope of the class, the Register recommends that the “solepurpose” language be altered and that the appropriate limitation be that the circumvention was“solely in order to connect to such a wireless telecommunications network.” This properly shifts
the emphasis to the objective of the activity rather than whether the person engaging in theactivity is doing so with an expectation of profit. While it would have the result, in some cases,of permitting circumvention of access controls by companies that purchase used handsets fromconsumers in order to make those handsets usable on other networks, the requirement (discussed
below) that the handsets must be “used” would prevent the abuses singled out by the opponents ofthe proposed class as their principal grounds for objection: the bulk purchase of unused handsetsthat are offered for sale at low prices and the resale of those handsets after removing thetechnological restrictions that limit the use of the handsets to a single network.547

547

As the NTIA stated, the proposed exemptions “raise interesting issues at the intersection ofcompetition, communications, and copyright law.” It noted that the FCC and others are “currently reviewing theissues related to competition and communications law and policy that may be linked” to exemption requests. NTIA
Letter of November 4, 2009, at 9. Here are some open proceedings at the FCC examining handset availability andother developments in the wireless industry: Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Exclusivity Arrangements Between
Commercial Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, RM-11497, FCC (rel. Oct. 23, 2008); Fostering
Innovation and Investment in the Wireless Communications Market, GN Docket No. 09-157, and A National
Broadband Plan For Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 09-66 (rel. Aug. 27, 2009).
Congress has held hearing on the subject as well. See also, The Consumer Wireless Experience, hearing before theU.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, June 17, 2009; An Examination of Competitionin the Wireless Industry, hearing before the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet,
May 7, 2009. There has even been legislation introduced that would prohibit the unlocking of pre-paid wirelessdevices. See The Wireless Prepaid Access Device Enforcement Act of 2009, H.R. 2449, introduced on May 14, 2009(“To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud and related activity in connection with purchases ofcertain wireless prepaid access devices.”)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 167

The term “lawfully” is not part of the new exemption. The original rationale for including
this term was to ensure that individuals or firms could not use the exemption to illegally connect
to a wireless network, that is, to connect to a network without the permission of the operator ofthat network. However, as Pocket pointed out, the use of the word in this context is ambiguous.548
In order to more accurately state the purpose that was originally behind the use of that word, andwhich remains valid in this proceeding, the Register proposes that the description of the classinclude the following qualification: “and access to the network is authorized by the operator of
the network.” This language clarifies the scope of the restriction. On the other hand, the merefact that the person who takes advantage of the exemption to connect to a new network may still
be contractually obligated to continue to use her original network would not be the kind of“unlawful” connection that is outside the scope of the exemption. The original carrier’s remedy
for such activity would be an action for breach of contract.549
The Register has added the phrase “the owner of the copy of such a computer program” toemphasize that the exemption is intended to benefit the owner of the mobile phone and thefirmware embedded in it. As discussed above, the state of the law with respect to who may be an“owner” of a copy of a computer program under Section 117 appears to be in flux, and thedetermination whether the owner of a handset is also the owner of the copies of computer
programs contained in that handset may depend on an evaluation of a number of circumstances.
However, because the basis for finding that the prohibition on circumvention has adversely
affected the ability of users to engage in noninfringing uses was the conclusion that those uses are
privileged under Section 117, and because the Section 117 privilege may be exercised only by theowner of the copy of the computer program, the users who may benefit from the designation ofthis class must necessarily be confined to “the owner of the copy of such a computer program.”
The Register understands the NTIA’s position on the issue of ownership, but the state of the law
and the variety of contractual or licensing arrangements in the marketplace make it impossible toinclude any bright line rules within the language of the regulation. The most that can be said at
this point is that if the owner of the handset also happens to be the owner of the copy of thecomputer program that is contained in the handset, then the designated class applies to her(assuming all the other requirements in the description of the class have been satisfied).
548

549

R44 (Pocket) at 8.

See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 at 79. (discussing the first sale doctrine) (“This does not mean thatconditions on future dispositions of copies or phonorecords, imposed by a contract between their buyer and seller,
would be unenforceable between the parties as a breach of contract, but it does mean that they could not be enforcedby an action for infringement of copyright.”) However, as discussed above, contractual restrictions may determine
whether the owner of the handset is in fact the “owner of the copy of such a computer program.”Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 168

The Register finds that it is necessary to address one grievance the wireless industry has
put forth in the record. Over the course of this proceeding, and through the comments filed by
CTIA and Virgin Mobile, it has become evident that one of their main concerns about the
proposed exemption requests centers on bulk resellers that would be able to purchase low cost
mobile phones, legally unlock them without activating them on a wireless network, and then sell
the devices for a profit in other countries. This concern shines through in the comments of the
opponents of the proposed class.
CTIA specifically argued that including the proposed class in the new triennial regulations
will foster bulk unlocking and unauthorized reselling of mobile phones. It remarked that there
appears to be general agreement in the industry that the bulk purchase and subsequentcircumvention of new phones for resale purposes is “wrong and destructive.”550 It argued that “theresult is no less than the theft of the phone subsidy by a profit-seeking free-rider.”551 It concluded
that such “theft” destroys the ability of a service provider to subsidize its phones, resulting inhigher costs and less choice for consumers. Virgin Mobile was in agreement with CTIA andargued against any exemption that would permit anyone to “free ride” on the subsidized phones it
provides to the public and unfairly profit from its low cost mobile phone offerings.
EFF stated that it understands the wireless industry’s concerns about bulk purchasers andlegitimizing certain outfits that would facilitate unlocking for dubious reasons. But, it added, theindustry’s concern is related more to abrogation of contracts, trademark infringement, and unfair
competition, and not so much with copyright protection.552
In addition, EFF argued that Virgin Mobile’s business model of selling highly subsidized
inexpensive mobile phones is the direct cause of the problems it has encountered with third
parties reflashing and selling their phones in overseas markets for a profit. It argues that Virgin
Mobile and other wireless carriers faced this situation before 2006 and, therefore, the existing
mobile phone exemption cannot be blamed for the situation. It commented that instead of
opposing the new requests, Virgin Mobile should instead invest in higher quality TPMs that makeit more difficult and expensive for bulk purchasers to do business.553
550

R43 (CTIA) at 39.

551

Id.

552

T Granick, 5/1/09, at 149-150.

553

Id. at 168.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 169

Based on the record evidence, the Register finds that bulk reselling of new mobile phones
by commercial ventures is a serious matter. There is no justification for the result of thisrulemaking proceeding to condone, either expressly or implicitly, the illegal trafficking of mobile
phones. Such illicit practices raise the cost of doing business, which in turn affects themarketplace for mobile phones and the prices consumers pay for such devices. The Register findsthat the exemption should be limited to include only “used” mobile phones. The term “used,” asapplied in this context, refers to a mobile phone that has been activated with the carrier orprovider that sold the phone at a subsidized price and that the person activating the phone must
actually have used on that carrier’s network. This additional language would likely promote
continued usage of the phone on that network because a consumer would be unlikely to switch
wireless networks immediately after activating the phone.554 This new language would also
prevent bulk resellers from taking advantage of the exemption after purchasing new mobile
devices en masse at retail establishments and immediately unlocking them to be sold outside theUnited States.
f.

Limitations on the new class of works

It must be pointed out that the new exemption is limited by existing law in two important
respects. First, the exemption is cabined by Section 1201(a)(2) which strictly prohibits an entity
from offering a circumvention service. Second, a wireless carrier’s “Terms of Purchase” and“Terms of Service”, which are binding contracts, still impose use restrictions on consumers evenwith an exemption in place. These legal constructs are explained in more detail below.
i.

Section 1201(a)(2)Joint Creators and Copyright Owners asserted that what the proponents are implicitly
seeking is to have an exemption that covers the sale of circumvention devices by third party
resellers, or the provision of circumvention services to others, both of which are prohibited by554

Virgin Mobile expressed an openness to such an approach. See T Lurie, 5/1/09, at 186-187 (“Whatyou could do, you could allow the exemption -- and we would submit something in writing later. But for legitimate
customers who previously used the service for which the device was intended, could themselves reflash the phone.”)Ultimately, however, Virgin Mobile continued to assert that no exemption is warranted and made clear that it would
continue to object to any exemption that did not include restrictions at least as stringent as those that were suggested
by CTIA. See Post-Hearing Response of Virgin Mobile to Copyright Office Questions relating to Cellphones of July
13, at 16-17.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 170

Section 1201(a)(2).555 They argued that Congress has already clarified when Section 1201(a)(2) isinapplicable, and the Register cannot recommend additions to that list. CTIA asserted that
Congress limited the scope of the rulemaking to the Section 1201(a)(1) prohibition on individuals
engaging in the act of circumvention. It argued the rulemaking expressly does not apply to those
who provide circumvention services or technology.556
In response, Cricket maintained that an exemption under Section 1201(a)(1) is
independent of 1201(a)(2) and suggested that granting the exemption for mobile phone unlocking
will not affect a wireless carrier’s ability to use Section 1201(a)(2) in a private cause of action
against the illegal trafficking of mobile phones.557
The Register does not agree that the proponents’ proposed classes of works are aimed
solely or even principally at bringing circumvention services under the umbrella of a Section
1201(a)(1) exemption. In fact, the main business of certain supporters of the exemption, such as
Pocket, is to sell new phones to new wireless subscribers, not to unlock and resell old mobile
phones. MetroPCS also concentrates on selling new handsets and services to new customers, andonly offers to reflash phones under certain conditions.558 The recyclers who are part of the
Wireless Alliance do not sell new phones; rather, they obtain old handsets from a variety ofsources, repurpose them, and redistribute them to others.559
Nothing in this rulemaking can or is intended to insulate such activities from liability
under Section 1201(a)(2) to the extent that they fall within its scope. If any of the proponents of555

R46 (Joint Creators) at 41. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)(A) (“No person shall manufacture, import,
offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or parts
thereof, that [ ] is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title….”).
556

R43 (CTIA) at 39-40.

557

T Inglish, 5/8/09, at 194-95.

558

In litigation against Virgin Mobile, MetroPCS asserted that it reflashes handsets only at a handset
owner’s request and only when a customer establishes wireless service with MetroPCS and agrees to various terms.
For example, customers requesting the reflashing service must affirm that they (1) do not have a contract with anyother wireless service provider, (2) are not participating in a scheme to acquire bulk quantities of subsidized handsets
to resell at higher prices, and (3) will not use the original provider’s trademarks in selling, offering for sale,
distributing, or advertising their handsets. MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. Virgin Mobile USA L.P., C.A. No. 3:08-CV1658-D, (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2009), at 4-5, n. 4.
559

The Register agrees with the Wireless Alliance that its members’ activities, “the recycling and resaleof used handsets, differs markedly from the business of the bulk purchasers and resellers of new phones that
Tracfone has sued” under Section 1201(a)(2). See C5D (Wireless Alliance) at 11.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 171the proposed class are offering the service of unlocking software locks, they most likely are inviolation of Section 1201(a)(2).560 To the extent that they are acquiring used handsets, unlocking
them and then reselling them, it seems unlikely that such activity falls within the scope of Section
1201(a)(2), but that is not a matter to be resolved in this rulemakingii.

Contracts

As discussed above,561 wireless service providers often sell their mobile phones with
contractual provisions prohibiting the use of the devices on other wireless networks. CTIA
asserted that circumvention often violates those contracts.
Virgin Mobile added that courts have already found its contractual terms to be
enforceable. It commented that it conspicuously notifies customers in all-capital letters on thehandset packaging that the purchase and use of Virgin Mobile-branded wireless handsets are
subject to certain restrictions, including that (1) the customer may not alter any hardware orsoftware in the handset and (2) the customer may use the handset only on the Virgin Mobile
service. It further commented that the first page of the “Terms of Service” booklet provided
inside the packaging reiterates the prohibition against reflashing; moreover, those customers whopurchase and/or activate their handsets on Virgin Mobile’s website must affirmatively click a box
acknowledging that they agree to be bound by the “Terms of Service.” It asserted that consumers
have at least two, and in some cases three, opportunities to either not purchase or to return thephones if they object to the “Terms of Purchase” or “Terms of Service.” Virgin Mobile thus
concluded these “terms” are enforceable agreements.562
MetroPCS asserted that it is inappropriate for carriers to insert into their agreements thathandsets may not be used on third party networks, or similarly limit the use of the software toprovision the use of services on the carrier’s network. It argued that such a limitation would be
similar to a car manufacturer inserting a provision in the sales contract that a car may only beserviced at a dealer’s service locations. It further argued that this would be an inappropriate
restraint of trade and the Register should consider whether to pre-empt state law to the extent
560

See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(E); see also, http://www.metropcs.com/metroflash (Last visited 5/6/10.)(describing the steps necessary to get a mobile phone reflashed at a MetroPCS store). The Register takes no position
as to whether MetroPCS is actually violating Section 1201(a)(2); the observation is merely offered to illustrate thatwhile Section 1201(a)(2) may be implicated in some of the activities identified by the Joint Creators, it does notappear to be implicated in all such activities.
561

See, supra, for a discussion of Virgin Mobile’s Terms of Service and Terms of Purchase.

562

Id. at 11.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 172

carriers try to use contract provisions to eliminate the rights being sought here. Otherwise, it
concluded, wireless carriers could attempt to make any relief granted here a hollow right easily
defeated.563
On the other hand, EFF stated that even if the exemption were granted, the contractual
relationship between the wireless carrier and its customers would remain.564 It further stated that
consumers who abrogate existing agreements would still be subject to contractual conditions andremedies, such as the requirement to pay early termination fees. In short, it is only asking that an
exemption from the Section 1201 anticircumvention requirement be granted so that a customer
would be permitted to unlock a mobile phone to use it on another network without being subject
to the remedies provided for violation of Section 1201(a)(1).565
Contracts, and the conditions that they may impose on mobile phone consumers, play animportant role in this context. It is commonly understood that “Terms of Purchase” and “Termsof Service” are types of contracts, the conditions of which vary from carrier to carrier. These
agreements are recognized as valid under state law and may contractually bind users to usage of
the wireless phone on a particular network or place other limitations on the use of the handset.
However, the Register is in no position to, and has no authority to, judge the merits of the dozens
of “Terms of Purchase” or “Terms of Service” in the marketplace today, especially in arulemaking proceeding such as this.
That being said, courts have recognized that contractual obligations stand apart from the
copyright law.566 The rights and obligations established by contract are different from the563

C5B (MetroPCS) at n. 21.

564

When queried on the contracts issue at the hearing, EFF questioned the enforceability of Virgin
Mobile’s “Terms of Service” and “Terms of Purchase”, but did not clearly articulate the reasoning behind its
suppositions or provide support for its position. T Granick, 5/1/09, at 214-15.
565

566

Id. at 179-80.

To demonstrate that contract rights are preempted by the Copyright Act, a party must show that thestate law claim (1) “falls within the subject matter of copyright,” as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 102, and (2) “protectsrights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights of a federal copyright, as provided in 17 U.S.C. § 106.”
Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 456 (5th Cir. 2003). The test for evaluating the equivalency of rights is
commonly referred to as the “extra element” test. Id., citing Alcatel USA, 166 F.3d at 787. This test requires that if
one or more qualitatively different elements are required to constitute the state-created cause of action being
asserted, then the right granted under state law does not lie within the general scope of copyright, and there is no
preemption. See MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. Virgin Mobile USA L.P., C.A. No. 3:08-CV-1658-D, (N.D. Tex. Sept.
25, 2009) at 45.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 173

exclusive rights granted by copyright.567 Breach of contract claims still may be brought by Virgin
Mobile and other carriers in the courts. This rulemaking proceeding, and the designation of thisclass of works, apply only to the Section 1201(a)(1) prohibition on circumvention of access
controls and have no effect whatsoever on the validity or viability of such breach of contract
claims.
g.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Register recommends that the Librarian of Congress consider
and approve the following class of works for an exemption to the prohibition on circumvention
found in Section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act:
Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable usedwireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network,when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program
solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access tothe network is authorized by the operator of the network.
The proposed class recommended by the Register goes somewhat beyond the classrecommended by NTIA. As noted above, NTIA recommended that the class designated three
years ago remain in place, but it did not support any of the proposed expansions of the current
class. NTIA also remarked that “the triennial DMCA exemption rulemaking is an inappropriate
forum to debate the larger policy issues,” such as competition and communications policy issues
currently under review by the Federal Communications Commission and other agencies.568 The
Register agrees with that observation, and her recommendation is based only on application of
copyright law and policy to the facts presented in the proceeding.

567

See ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996) (Rights “equivalent to any of the
exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright” are rights established by law--rights that restrict the optionsof persons who are strangers to the [copyright holder]. Copyright law forbids duplication, public performance, andso on, unless the person wishing to copy or perform the work gets permission; silence means a ban on copying. A
copyright is a right against the world. Contracts by contrast, generally affect only their parties; strangers may do as
they please, so contracts do not create “exclusive rights.”); see also Taquino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d
1488, 1501 (5th Cir. 1990) (“A right is equivalent if the mere act of reproduction, distribution, or display infringes it.
This action for breach of contract involves an element in addition to mere reproduction, distribution or display: thecontract promise made by Taquino, therefore, it is not preempted.” (citations omitted)). See MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.
at 45-46.
568

NTIA Letter November 4, 2009, at 8.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 174

Specifically, NTIA cautioned that its “endorsement of continuing this exemption should
not be construed as support for commercial application of this exemption,” and stated that it was“persuaded by opponents’ argument that the narrowly tailored language used in 2006 prevents
unlawful use by those that would misuse the exemption for commercial purposes.”569 NTIA also
proposed a dichotomy where non-profit entities could take advantage of the exemption while
commercial users could not. The Register’s recommendation, in contrast, would permit somecommercial activity, so long as it (1) involves only used handsets, (2) is done by the owner of thecopy of the computer program, and (3) is done “solely in order to access such a wirelesstelecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the
network.” The Register believes that these limitations ensure that the designation of this classwill not benefit those who engage in the type of commercial activity that is at the heart of theobjections of opponents of the proposed exemption: the “bulk resellers” who purchase newmobile phone handsets at subsidized prices and, without actually using them on the networks ofthe carriers who market those handsets, resell them for profit.570 The type of commercial activity
that would be permitted would be the resale of used handsets after the owners of the handsets
have used them and then given or sold them to somebody else, who then resells them just as aused bookstore sells used books. The Register acknowledges that NTIA’s general view that theclass should not extend to any commercial activity is inconsistent with aspects of the Register’s
recommendation, but believes that to the extent her recommendation goes beyond what NTIA
was willing to endorse, it does so in a way that, in NTIA’s words, “prevents unlawful use by thosethat would misuse the exemption for commercial purposes.”571
D.

Video games accessible on personal computers and protected bytechnological protection measures that control access to lawfully
obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the
purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security
flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
1.

The information derived from the security testing is usedprimarily to promote the security of the owner or
operator of a computer, computer system, or computer
network; and569

Id. at 9.

570

See R43 (CTIA) at 21-22, 39-40 (referring to “bulk commercial reflashers” who engage in “subsidy

571

See NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 9 (emphasis added).

theft”).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

2.

June 11, 2010

Page 175

The information derived from the security testing is usedor maintained in a manner that does not facilitate
copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

Background. Professor J. Alex Halderman proposed two classes of works relating toinvestigating and correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities created or exploited by technologicalmeasures protecting certain kinds of works.572 The first proposed class includes three categories ofworks as its starting point: (1) literary works, (2) sound recordings; and (3) audiovisual works.
The proponent then qualified the scope of the proposed class by restricting it to lawfully obtained
works within those categories protected by access control measures that create or exploit security
flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers. The class is further
refined by reference to particular uses—when circumvention is accomplished solely for the
purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.
The precursor for this proposal is a class that the Librarian designated in 2006:
Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings,
distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection
measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit
security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal
computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of goodfaith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.
The 2006 exemption was largely based on the facts arising out of the distribution, by SonyBMG Music Entertainment, of compact discs (“CDs”) that employed certain digital rights
management software that created security vulnerabilities on computers on which the software
572

The two classes are:
Literary works, sound recordings, and audiovisual works accessible on personal computers andprotected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works andcreate or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal
computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing,investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities; andVideo games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measuresthat control access to lawfully obtained works and create or exploit security flaws orvulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention isaccomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security
flaws or vulnerabilities. C8A (Halderman) at 3.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 176

was installed. Specifically, SunnComm’s MediaMax content protection software andFirst4Internet’s XCP copy protection software program were alleged to create significant security
vulnerabilities on personal computers. The proponents of the 2006 exemption, Edward W. Felten
and J. Alex Halderman, proposed the class of “sound recordings and audiovisual works
distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological measures that impede access tolawfully purchased works by creating or exploiting security vulnerabilities that compromise thesecurity of personal computers.”
The evidence in the record of the 2006 proceeding demonstrated that MediaMax and XCP
controlled access to the sound recordings (as well as some related audiovisual works, such asmusic videos) on a number of CDs distributed in 2005 and, as a consequence, ended up being
installed on perhaps half a million computer networks worldwide. The evidence also establishedthat these access controls created security vulnerabilities on the personal computers on which they
were installed. For example, XCP included a “rootkit” which cloaked the existence of otheraspects of the XCP digital rights management software (a music player application and a device
driver).573 The rootkit created security vulnerabilities by providing a cloak that concealed
malicious software, a cloak that, in fact, was exploited by disseminators of malware within daysof the discovery of the XCP rootkit.
Copyright owners were opposed to the proposed exemption primarily on the ground thatthey believed that a statutory exemption already exists that permits circumvention of access
controls for the purpose of “security testing” under Section 1201(j) (“accessing a computer,computer system, or computer network, solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating,or correcting, a security flaw or vulnerability, with the authorization of the owner or operator ofsuch computer, computer system, or computer network.”) After extensive review and analysis of
the legislative history, the Register concluded that while it appears possible that the statutory
exemption in Section 1201(j) may permit certain acts of circumvention in cases such as those
involving MediaMax and XCP, it was not clear from either the statutory language or thelegislative history whether that provision extends to the circumvention of an access control on a
copy of a copyrighted work (as opposed to “accessing a computer, computer system or computer
network”). In light of that uncertainty and the seriousness of the problem, the Register
recommended that the Librarian designate a class of works consisting of sound recordings, and573

A rootkit is a kind of computer code that is able to command and control an operating system and iscapable of hiding its presence from spyware blockers and similar system management utilities. See, infra, for afurther discussion of rootkits.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 177

audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format andprotected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works
and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal
computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing,investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.
Class of works rejected–literary and/or audiovisual works. In the current proceeding,Professor Halderman did not introduce any evidence that the prohibition as applied to soundrecordings, or audiovisual works associated with such sound recordings, is adversely affecting or
is likely, in the next three years, to adversely affect the ability to engage in noninfringing uses.
There is no information in the record that would justify again exempting the class designatedthree years ago. In this de novo review, the absence of a record in relation to sound recordings
requires that the default rule established by Congress should apply and that no exemption should
issue.
Similarly, there is nothing in the record of this proceeding that creates a record relating toa class based on literary and/or audiovisual works, except to the extent that video games
constitute literary works or audiovisual works. There is some speculation in the record that otherdigital rights management measures “are likely” to implicate other types of copyrighted works(e.g., ebooks and streaming video), but the evidence to support this claim is either unverifiable,
contradictory, or speculative.574 Moreover, while it may be that digital rights management
measures are increasingly used on new types of digital works, there is no evidence that suchmeasures are likely to create security flaws or vulnerabilities.
While Professor Halderman may have offered compelling policy arguments in favor of an
exemption that covers such works, those arguments are more properly addressed to Congress than
to the Register and the Librarian. This rulemaking is restricted in its scope; it can address only
particular classes of works with respect to which noninfringing uses are being adversely affected
or, in the next three years, are likely to be adversely effected by the prohibition on circumvention.
This inquiry is primarily fact-based, although of course legal analysis, to determine whether the574

C8 (Halderman) at 7-8, nn. 30 and 31. Footnote 30 contains speculation about the possibilities for
DRM on e-books in the next five years, but there is no evidence that DRM on e-books causes, or is likely to cause,
security flaws or vulnerabilities. The blog entry cited in footnote 31 tends to refute the claim that Adobe creates
security flaws or vulnerabilities, and explains that Adobe simply encrypts streamed content in order to protect accessand prevent reproduction of streaming content. Similarly, another article cited discusses Microsoft’s Silverlightstreaming technology, but does not reveal any evidence of security flaws or vulnerabilities caused by thattechnology.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 178

affected use is noninfringing, also plays a key role. It focuses on the marketplace as it is at thetime the rulemaking takes place, and not on broader policy concerns that are within the provinceof the legislature. While Professor Halderman’s concerns relating to sound recordings and toliterary and audiovisual works other than video games may be well-founded, he has not presented
a record upon which the Librarian can act in this regulatory setting. Indeed, similar policy
concerns presumably could be articulated with respect to any works of any kind that are
distributed in digital formats and protected by technological measures.
Accordingly, the Register cannot recommend that the Librarian designate the first of thetwo classes proposed by Professor Halderman. However, Professor Halderman has presented arecord relating to the second proposed class involving certain video games.
Class of works accepted–video games. For purposes of categorization under Section
102(a) of the Copyright Act, video games are “hybrid” in that they fall within two statutory
classes of works.575 Video games typically are, in part, computer programs,576 which are a subsetof the statutory category of “literary works.” But other aspects of video games, and increasingly
the predominant authorship, are comprised of audiovisual elements. Thus, while the categories ofliterary works and audiovisual works are implicated in a record relating to video games, thosecategories encompass an enormous range of works that are not addressed in the factual record.
The only evidence introduced in relation to particular alleged problems relates to two types ofaccess controls applied to video games.577 Given the evidentiary record before the Register, thestarting point in this analysis is limited to video games on personal computers protected bytechnological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works and create or
exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers.
Professor Halderman conceded that focusing on such a class “should be adequate to
mitigate the harms caused by TPMs [technological protection measures] that control access to
PC-accessible video games because it will remove the chilling effect of the anti-circumvention
measures, thereby encouraging independent researchers to investigate and correct security flaws

575

17 U.S.C. § 102(a).

576
17 U.S.C. § 101 (A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or
indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.)
577

C8 (Halderman) at 5.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 179

in these TPMs and allowing users to stay informed and take appropriate measures to protect
themselves.”578
The record relating to the adverse effects on security research and investigation oftechnological measures applied to video games is primarily limited to two distinct security
measures: (1) Macrovision’s SafeDisc software and (2) Sony’s SecuRom software.579 Professor
Halderman asserted that the measures constitute access controls because, in both cases, themeasures authenticate discs and enforce access policies.580
The alleged underlying noninfringing use involved is two-fold. First, purchasers of video
games (including researchers) are engaged in noninfringing use when they install, access, andplay authorized copies of such video games while further seeking to protect the security of their
computers. Second, researchers in lawful possession of copies of games are engaged innoninfringing uses when they seek solely to research and investigate whether a video game, or thetechnological measure protecting it, creates security vulnerabilities or flaws. Professor Halderman
asserted that such good faith research that does not cause or promote infringement generally fitssquarely within the fair use factors.581
In support of his conclusion that such activities constitute fair use, Professor Halderman
argued that the purposes of the intended use are research, scholarship and teaching, conduct
expressly mentioned as illustrative fair uses in the preamble of Section 107.582 He further statedthat “the discovery and disclosure of security vulnerabilities is analogous to criticism andcommentary, two other model fair uses listed in the preamble.”583 He asserted that the creative
nature of the work is not particularly significant in the context of video games (i.e., creative
games expressed as computer programs), because they generally “contain unprotected aspects thatcannot be examined without copying.”584 Although the entire work may be installed and578

Id. at 7.

579

Id. at 5-6.

580

Id. at 8.

581

Id. at 12-13.

582

Id. at 13.

583

Id.

584

Id. at 14, citing Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596, 603 (9th Cir. 2000);
Sega Enters. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1526 (9th Cir. 1992).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 180

reproduced in the course of this research, he argued that the installation of a lawful copy is
generally within the scope of the license.585 Moreover, the use of the copyrighted work is
incidental to the purpose of investigating the protection measure itself. To the extent the
copyrighted work is used, it is either used minimally or not at all.586 Professor Halderman also
argued that security research is likely to increase market demand rather than adversely affect themarket for or value of the works, because research will ameliorate consumer uncertainty.
Moreover, he argued that to the extent that research harms the market for the work, it would only
do so as successful criticism, which is not relevant market harm for purposes of copyright.587 In
conclusion, he found that all of the factors weigh in favor of fair use.588
Professor Halderman alleged that Sony’s SecuROM may create security flaws orvulnerabilities. In support, he referred to a number of articles and class action lawsuits suggestingthat SecuROM may contain flaws or cause vulnerabilities. He claimed that “anecdotal contentionsof harm, speculations about causes, and contradictory assessments of risk have run wild on theInternet.”589 He further stated that a single definitive scientific study might quell the “panic,
protests, and litigation” to “what may turn out to be nonexistent or easily reparable faults.”590
Professor Halderman further alleged that harm is caused by Macrovision’s SafeDisc, “oneof the most widely used copy-protection systems for PC-accessible video games.”591 He allegedthat SafeDisc was preinstalled on “nearly every copy of the Microsoft Windows XP and Windows
2003 operating systems, [and that] the vulnerability affected nearly one billion PCs, two thousand
times more than the [Sony] rootkit.”592 He claimed that the security flaw created by SafeDisc was“much more dangerous” than the Sony rootkit flaw, because the flaw allowed attackers to585

Id. at 14.

586

Id.

587

Id.

588

Id. at 15.

589

C8 (Halderman) at 6.

590

Id. at 7.

591

Id. at 5.

592

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 181“execute unrestricted ‘kernel-level’ code and read or write to any area of the hard disk or memoryof the PC, thus facilitating the complete compromise of the security of the PC.”593
Opponents raised three principal arguments against Halderman’s proposal. First, theyargued that he provided little concrete or documented evidence that any security flaws orvulnerabilities associated with access control mechanisms used in connection with video games
exist. Second, they argued that there is no evidence that research has been chilled. They allegedthat Professor Halderman completely ignored “the development of a robust ecosystem within
which security experts routinely identify such flaws, collaborate on remedies, and disseminate
information to alert computer users of the problems and point them to solutions.”594 Third, theyargued that Professor Halderman failed to establish that the conduct at issue is prohibited by
Section 1201(a)(1), since a statutory exemption might apply to the security research.595
In support of their first point, opponents stated that the vulnerability identified in SafeDisc
was resolved and a patch made available to consumers. They also noted that a remote user could
not exploit this vulnerability, and that the driver included with Windows was inactive until
invoked by a game. In response to the allegations relating to SecuROM, the opponents argued
that the allegations of various bloggers, many of them anonymous, are completely
unsubstantiated. Moreover, opponents argued that a closer examination of many of the classaction complaints reveals that most address performance issues, licensing restrictions, disclosure
questions, and activation limitations, all of which are unrelated to security threats.596 The security
concerns are “the spindly tail being wagged by a much more robust dog of unrelated consumer
complaints.”597
With respect to Professor Halderman’s second argument, the opponents agreed thatindependent security research and testing should be encouraged to identify and correct any
security flaws or vulnerabilities that access controls might contain. However, they asserted that
this research is occurring and that the claims that the prohibition is chilling research are593

Id. at 5, n. 19.

594

R46 (Joint Creators) at 47. The Joint Creators also argued that there was no showing in relation to thecategories of literary, sound recording, and audiovisual works.
595

Id. at 47 and 53-54.

596

Id. at 49.

597

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 182

ungrounded. They claimed that this alleged chilling effect is contradicted by the two examples
cited by the Professor Halderman. In the case of SafeDisc, they stated that Symantec researchers
identified the problem and that there have been no reports of legal threats as a result of thisresearch. Similarly, they claimed that Symantec and other independent researchers have exploredand debunked some of the security allegations surrounding SecuRom without any reports of legal
threats.598 Opponents further argued that research is encouraged by the industry and that the online
resources and attribution given to researchers provides evidence of the “robust and collaborative
ecosystem” that exists.599
In relation to the opponents’ argument that Section 1201(j) may apply, the opponents statethat the proponent of an exemption has the burden of proving that an existing statutory exemption
does not apply. Notwithstanding the acknowledgment that the Register and the Librarian
concluded in the last rulemaking that an exemption in this rulemaking process may be granted
when “it is not clear whether [a statutory exemption] extends” to the conduct in question,” theopponents contended that when a proponent fails to prove that the activity falls outside of thescope of the exemption, “the burden has not been met, and the proposal must be rejected.”600 In
particular, the Joint Creators contend that Section 1201(j) “could apply.”601
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information has advised
the Register that he believes that the record supports granting the requested exemption for video
games and other works accessible on personal computers.602 NTIA believed that the proponents
have “persuasively argued that without a research exemption, research into all current and future
vulnerabilities will be and is chilled now,”603 and concurred with the Librarian’s conclusion in2006 that the research may not be covered completely by the existing statutory exemptions.604

598

Id. at 51.

599

Id. at 52.

600

Id. at 53.

601

Id.

602

NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 11-12.

603

Id. at 11.

604

Id. at 12.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 183

NTIA further believes that although the Sony Rootkit vulnerability no longer exists, “it seems to
be a certainty that new vulnerabilities will emerge in the next three years.”605
NTIA urged the Register to resist focusing solely on the limited protection measures
identified by the proponents, because vulnerabilities are certain in the future in relation to othertechnological protection measures.606 NTIA did not accept the opponents’ attempts to narrow theexemption,607 but rather believed that the exemption should permit research by academic,
government, and private entities and individuals.
a.

The nature of the underlying use of the copyrighted work byresearchers

The only limitation to the copyright owner’s exclusive rights that is clearly relevant to thereproductions of the copyrighted work in the course of investigation and research is fair use.608 In
order to determine whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is fair, the four mandatory
statutory factors must be considered.609
Factor One
The purpose and character of the use of the video game is to investigate and identify, ingood faith, whether security flaws and vulnerabilities in the technological measures protecting avideo game exist. In order to do that, the researcher typically must purchase and install the video
605

Id. (emphasis in original).

606

Id. at 12.

607

In response to post-hearing questions, opponents had asserted that if the Librarian were to designate aclass to address security flaws and vulnerabilities, “the exemption should be limited to an identifiable category ofcredentialed qualified experts engaged in verifiable security research.” Post-Hearing Response of Joint Creators to
Copyright Questions relating to Security Flaws of July 10, 2009, at 2.
608

Professor Halderman offered two legal theories as to how the conduct in which he wished to engage isnoninfringing: fair use and Section 117. There could be an argument that Section 117 is relevant to the analysis, but
it is unclear whether the technological protection measure or the video game may be classified as a “computer
program” for purposes of this statutory provision, and the parties have not raised the issue. Moreover, the law isunsettled with respect to the circumstances under which one is the “owner” of a copy of a computer program entitled
to invoke Section 117. See, supra. In any event, while Professor Halderman offered a legal analysis in support of his
fair use claim, he did nothing more than refer to Section 117 without offering any explanation as to how it isapplicable. Given his failure to offer any reasons why Section 117 is applicable and given the conclusions here
concerning fair use, the Register finds no reason to assess the relevance of Section 117.
609

17 U.S.C. § 107.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 184

game on the computer. It should be noted that the proposed class is applicable only to good faithtesting, investigating, or correcting of security flaws or vulnerabilities and not to circumvent forother purposes. Moreover, not only does this activity involve research and, at least in some cases,
teaching and scholarship, but like all of the activities listed in the preamble of Section 107, it
involves a broader socially productive activity. The goal of the research is to yield rigorous andaccurate criticism or comment about the technological measure attached to a work. This criticism
or comment may reveal problems or dispel unfounded rumors. In either case, the purpose issocially productive and provides the public with an objective assessment of publicly distributed
measures that control access to video games.
The character of the use is also typically noncommercial and the purpose of the use istransformative. Security researchers do not typically seek direct monetary reward forinvestigating mass-marketed security measures. Although researchers may receive indirect
benefits from successful scholarship (e.g., tenure and publicity), the same may be said for any
scholarly research. Moreover, security research is transformative because it serves an entirely
different purpose from the entertainment purpose of the copyrighted work and the measureprotecting that work. Indeed, the particular work itself is essentially irrelevant to the use, exceptthat the work must be reproduced in order to understand how the protection measure attached to
the work operates. The goal of security research is analogous to reverse engineering for the
purpose of achieving interoperability. Like reverse engineering, the intermediate copying of thework is a means to another end, that is, to understand the functioning of the security measure inorder to assess potential vulnerabilities the measure creates on a personal computer. The productof the research does not generally contain any of the copyrighted work, but only locally
reproduces the work as needed to investigate the operation of the measure in conjunction with thework and the computer’s operating system. Any reproduction of the copyrighted work typicallydoes not extend beyond the researcher’s computer on which the researcher was already entitled toreproduce the entire work as a consequence of its being a lawful copy of the work. These
noncommercial, socially productive, transformative uses performed solely for good faith testing,investigation, or correcting of security flaws or vulnerabilities weigh heavily in favor of fair use
under the first factor.
Factor Two
Turning to the nature of the copyrighted works, video games are creative and thus would
ordinarily be entitled to a broad scope of protection in a fair use analysis. However, video games

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 185

made for personal computers, as opposed to proprietary game systems, are necessarily also partly
computer programs. These types of programs contain many functional elements necessary forinteroperability with a personal computer operating system. The security research at issue here
focuses on functionality, rendering the creative aspects of the video games irrelevant. Therefore,
for purposes of a fair use analysis on the facts presented here, the video games actually should beconsidered functional works entitled to lesser consideration.610 Moreover, the focus here is noteven so much on the video games themselves as it is on the technological protection measuresthat control access to the video games, measure that are purely functional. Because thesefunctional elements cannot be investigated or assessed without some intermediate reproduction of
the creative work, whatever significance there might be in the creative nature of a video game inthis context is diminished.611 In addition, to the extent that the purpose of the use istransformative (i.e., a different purpose from the entertainment purpose or reasonable derivative
markets), this factor does not offer a great deal of assistance.612
Factor Three
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as awhole tends to favor fair use. Although the entire work may be reproduced in the course of
testing and investigating a measure used to protect access to a video game, these reproductions
are intermediate copies, at least in part, consistent with authorized use of a lawfully acquired
video game. The amount of the copyrighted work that is actually used by the security researcher’s
end-product will likely none at all. That is not surprising since the copyrighted work itself is not
the focus of the research, but rather an ancillary necessity in the course of studying thetechnological protection measure attached to the work. Given likely nonexistent use of the
copyrighted work in any results the researchers provide to the public, this factor tends to weigh infavor of fair use; in any event, it certainly does not weigh against fair use.
Factor Four

610

See Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc, 977 F.2d at 1524 (reaching a similar conclusion regarding a
different kind of research that involved making copies of video games).
611

612

Id. at 1510.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569, 586 (1994); see also, Bill Graham Archives v.
Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 612 (2d Cir. 2006)( “We recognize, however, that the second factor may beof limited usefulness where the creative work of art is being used for a transformative purpose.”)Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 186

Turning to the fourth factor—the effect of the use upon the potential market for or valueof the copyrighted work—good faith research would be unlikely to adversely affect the potential
market for or value of a work in a manner cognizable under the Copyright Act. First, because theresearch copy would have to be lawfully obtained and no copies of the work are distributed as aresult of the study, the research would not have a direct effect on the market for the copyrighted
work. To the extent that the research results in unfavorable or critical findings, any resulting harmto the market for that work would not be relevant harm to Section 106 rights.613 Moreover,research that failed to uncover any security flaws or vulnerabilities would tend to foster themarket for or value of the work. There is a social benefit in objective analysis that dispels rumorsand speculation about the vulnerabilities created by a technological protection measure. Scholarly
research is capable of certifying the safety of protection measures in the marketplace and may
foster cooperation between researchers and the creators of technological protection measures
early in the process to ensure the integrity of protection systems.
Overall, the factors tend to strongly support a finding of fair use in this context. The
socially productive purpose of investigating security and informing the public do not involve useof the creative aspects of the work and are unlikely to have an adverse effect on the market for orvalue of the copyrighted work itself. The proponents have therefore established an underlying
noninfringing use that may be affected by the prohibition.
b.

The evidence of existing or likely adverse effects on noninfringing
uses

The next step in the analysis is to determine whether the prohibition is adversely affecting,or is likely to adversely affect, noninfringing research. In particular, it is necessary to determine
whether the record provides verifiable and measurable evidence that security flaws orvulnerabilities exist, whether the prohibition has adversely affected the ability to engage insecurity research, or whether there is sufficient evidence that such vulnerabilities are likely toexist with respect to either of the technological measures that have been used in relation to thisclass of works. Such evidence is necessary in order to determine whether an exemption is
warranted for a particular class of works during the next three year period.614
613

614

Id. at 591-592.

Security research is, as a general proposition, a socially beneficial pursuit. However, this rulemaking is
not intended to provide prescriptive indemnification for socially beneficial noninfringing uses without a showing that
harm has occurred or is likely to occur. Moreover, the scope of permissible exemptions is limited to particularclasses of works. Therefore, present or likely harm in a particular class must be established to support an exemption.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 187

The record is essentially limited to two specific technological measures used on a wide
variety of video games: SecuRom and SafeDisc. While it is undisputed that the evidence relating
to SecuRom tends to be highly speculative, Professor Halderman asserted that “this situation has
been crying out for an investigation by reputable security researchers in order to rigorously
determine the nature of the problem that this system cause[s], and dispel this uncertainty about
exactly what’s going on.” 615 He believed that the prohibition on circumvention is at least partiallyto blame for the lack of rigorous, independent analysis.616 Professor Halderman submitted a
research plan into the record to explain exactly what he proposed to examine in order todetermine whether SecuROM does in fact contain security flaws or create security
vulnerabilities.617 A close inspection of the articles and websites cited by Professor Halderman in
his submissions reveals little more than conjecture about whether SecuROM creates
vulnerabilities. Moreover, even though a number of class action suits have been filed, including
allegations that the SecuROM program cannot be completely uninstalled, other softwaredevelopers dispute these allegations.618 Critics of the allegations of vulnerabilities (found from thesources cited by Professor Halderman) have gone so far as to say that “people with no realknowledge of SecuROM are deliberately and systematically creating and then perpetuating
absolutely unverifiable, often patently false claims against such protection systems, more todebase and undermine the protection system’s credibility in the eyes of the public than anythingelse.”619 There is no clear evidence in the record that tends to prove that SecuROM is creating, or
is likely to create, security flaws or vulnerabilities.
The evidence offered by Professor Halderman simply proves that suspicion exists. He
alleged that further proof can only be obtained through research, and that such research is being
chilled by the prohibition. It is not clear from the record whether research is in fact being chilledby the threat of the prohibition on circumvention, but a number of the activities cited in Professor
Halderman’s research plan appear to constitute prohibited conduct.620 Thus, a researcher abiding
by the prohibition might reasonably avoid activity that could create legal liability. It appears
615

T Halderman, 5/7/09, at 186.

616

Id.

617

R29 (Halderman).

618

See Tweakguides, PC Game Piracy Examined, http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_9.html. (Last
visited 5/6/10.)
619

Id.

620

R29 (Halderman) at 3.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 188

reasonable to conclude that in the absence of an applicable limitation on the prohibition, security
research to determine the facts, without regard to the ultimate conclusion that might be reached,
could be adversely affected by the prohibition.
If the evidence relating to SecuRom were the sole factual basis for the exemption, theexistence of such speculation alone would be insufficient to support the recommendation of an
exemption for the ensuing three-year period. As noted above, the object of this rulemaking
proceeding is to designate specific classes of works with respect to which the prohibition against
circumvention is actually having an adverse effect on noninfringing uses (or is likely to do so in
the next three years). Such findings have always required evidence that a problem actually exists(or is more likely than not to exist in the next three years) with respect to the particular class ofworks.
The unsubstantiated allegations about SecuROM do not, however, serve as the soleevidentiary basis for the proposed exemption. Professor Halderman has also identified SafeDisc
as another technological measure that controls access to video games. In contrast to SecuROM,
SafeDisc has created a verifiable security vulnerability on a large number of computers.
Opponents of Professor Halderman’s proposal do not dispute that SafeDisc created asecurity vulnerability, but they argue that the security flaw was patched by Microsoft in 2007,
without the need of an exemption.621 However, the evidence demonstrates that Macrovision’s
SafeDisc was pre-loaded on nearly every copy of Microsoft’s Windows XP and Windows 2003
operating systems. It was on the market for over six years before a security researcher discovered
malware exploiting the security.622 The vulnerability had the capacity to affect nearly one billion
PCs.623
The SafeDisc situation demonstrates that there have, since the previous rulemaking
proceeding concluded, been verifiable and measurable security vulnerabilities in the class ofvideo games. The concerns about SecuROM, while insufficient in and of themselves, and whether
accurate or erroneous, may lend additional weight to the conclusion that security researchers areadversely affected by the prohibition on circumvention in their ability to lawfully assess whether
621

C8 (Halderman) at 5, n. 17.

622

Id. at 6-7.

623

Id. at 5.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 189

or not SecuROM poses security vulnerabilities on computers. Within the class of video games,
the proponents have demonstrated that substantial vulnerabilities existed for a significant periodof time with respect to SafeDisc. Within the same class of works, security researchers haveproposed investigation of unconfirmed allegations of security vulnerabilities on anothertechnological protection measure (SecureROM) that controls access, but have expressedunwillingness to do so without clear legal authority. Aggregating the evidentiary record, theproponents have shown that they need to be able to fix flaws that are identified in this class ofworks and they need to be able to investigate other alleged security vulnerabilities in this class,
one that SafeDisc demonstrates is subject to such vulnerabilities.
The opponents of the exemption argue that the evidence with respect to SafeDisc must bebalanced with the fact that the vulnerability was discovered and fixed without the need of an
exemption. In their view, the existing market was capable of adequately resolving the problem
without requiring an exemption.
The opponents’ testimony that the “ecosystem in place…relies on people in the field to
identify and bring to the attention of the developers the flaws that may exist” 624 demands closer
scrutiny to determine whether it is borne out by the facts. The incentives of a company to fix its
own problems, incentives that the opponents claim exist,625 are not necessarily sufficient topublicize, investigate or remedially address flaws or vulnerabilities found to exist in a protection
measure in all cases. The opponents asserted, but have not demonstrated, why those who createdthe protection measure containing the flaws will always have good reason to discover, publicize
and repair them. 626 They also did not adequately address the benefit to copyright owners or the
public that result from expressly permitting independent research into security flaws.

624

T Metalitz, 5/7/09, at 207.

625

Id. at 229.

626

Moreover, a news report quoting a Macrovision spokesperson suggests otherwise. See UPDATE Buggy game DRM puts Windows users at risk, http://www.thestandard.com/news/2007/11/08/update-buggy-gamedrm-puts-windows-users-risk. (Last visited 5/6/10.) The fact that Macrovision and Microsoft “worked together
during the development of Windows Vista RTM [release to manufacturing] to review the security of the Vista
version of the [secdrv.sys] driver” but failed to address the vulnerability on Windows XP and 2003 until after a
Symantec employee discovered the vulnerability being exploited tends to undermine the assertion that the creators ofmeasures have sufficient incentive to discover, disclose and repair flaws and vulnerabilities in a timely manner.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 190

The opponents of the exemption also argued that the proponents’ evidence does not rise to
the level of the problem established in 2006 regarding the Sony rootkit issue.627 In the case of
SafeDisc, they argued that the “vulnerability was identified and resolved, and a patch madeavailable to consumers….”628 They also pointed out that this vulnerability could not be exploitedby a remote user; ‘an attacker must convince a user to run an executable or must have valid logon
credentials to exploit this vulnerability.’”629 In testimony, they also stated that:the researchers, for whatever reason, apparently did not discover this problem until
after some bad guys discovered it. But they were able to very quickly do theresearch that was needed to generate a fix and have that widely distributed.
Professor Halderman paints this episode in apocalyptic terms of the millions ofcomputers that were infected, and how much worse this was than the Sony rootkit.
I don’t want to underscore the obvious, there was no rootkit involved here. And, if
you look at the normal channels adapted to this, to identify the problem, develop a
fix and distribute a fix, we give two examples of that in our submission. And
neither of them thought this was a world-ending problem. It was a problem.
There’s no question the fix was important. But the system worked. The research
was done, and the security problem was fixed.630

Thus, both proponents and opponents of an exemption appear to have agreed that aproblem existed with respect to SafeDisc. Moreover, despite some dispute about the scale of thatvulnerability, given that the vulnerability had the potential of affecting a billion personal
computers, the scale of the problem was significant. In addition to the scale of the problem, thenature of the problem is also an important factual consideration. In order to understand the natureof the problem and compare it to the evidence presented in the 2006 rulemaking relating to theSony rootkit, an examination of additional information from the record is warranted.
c.

The nature of the vulnerability

The record indicates that the PC-accessible video game market has undergone gradualchange. Initially, serial numbers and passwords contained in manuals were used by copyright627

See R46 (Joint Creators) at 48-49; T Metalitz, 5/7/09, at 197. See also 2006 Recommendation of theRegister of Copyrights at 54-64.
628

R46 (Joint Creators) at 48.

629

Id.

630

T Metalitz, 5/7/09, at 197-198.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 191

owners to ensure that users were installing authorized copies of video games before access to thegames would be granted.631 With the rise of the Internet, some copyright owners began to use
remote authentication, with the user’s copy being verified for authenticity by a central server ofthe copyright owner.632 When such measures proved ineffective at preventing unauthorized copies
to be accessed, some copyright owners pursued more aggressive strategies to control access tovideo games. As in the case of the Sony rootkit employed on CDs containing sound recordings, a
new strategy involved installing the video game on the computer and, at the same time,surreptitiously installing a third party program along with the game. This third party program istypically installed with elevated privileges on the computer operating system, giving the program
unfettered access to the rest of the PC in order to carry out tasks for the copyright owner, such as
authenticating discs, enforcing access policies, and taking countermeasures against circumvention
tools.633
Rootkits are a form of malicious code or malware that may include viruses, spyware or
trojans that attempt to hide their presence from spyware blockers, antivirus, and systemmanagement utilities.634 Rootkits come in many forms,635 but they are only one form of malicious
code.636 As Professor Halderman stated:
Both the Sony rootkit and the flawed SafeDisc software are so-called “device
drivers.” Device drivers have effectively unrestricted access to PC hardware andsoftware, so attackers can often leverage security flaws in the drivers to bypass
other security mechanisms on the PC. The flaw in the Sony rootkit grants attackers
only the limited power to conceal their own files and programs; the SafeDisc flaw
is much more dangerous, allowing attackers to execute unrestricted “kernel-level”
code and read or write any area of the hard disk or memory of the PC, thus
facilitating the complete compromise of the security of the PC. The flaws in both
the rootkit and SafeDisc are exploited by so-called “privilege escalation attacks”
and require the attacker to first gain some access to the PC.637
631

C8 (Halderman) at 8.

632

Id.

633

Id.

634

See Bryce Cogswell and Mark Russinovich, Rootkit Revealer v.1.71, http://technet.microsoft.com/enus/sysinternals/bb897445.aspx. (Last visited 5/6/10.)
635

Id.

636

C8 (Halderman) at 5, n. 19.

637

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 192

A key feature of both device drivers is that they install deep within the operating system of
the computer. This feature has advantages for copyright owners by providing increased control
over changes that a user can make to a computer’s hardware, software, settings, or interactions
between these elements. Such control may prevent, for instance, the user’s ability to access awork in any manner beside the secure manner chosen by the copyright owner.
This feature also has fundamental disadvantages. When a control is placed at the kernellevel of the operating system, it enables an outside source to take advantage of that high-level
control, or Ring 0 access, of the computer’s operating system.638 Privilege escalation attacks, oneof many forms of malicious attacks on a computer, computer system, or computer network,
enable a “bug” in an application to gain access to resources which normally would have beenprotected from an application or user with lower privileges. 639
Opponents of the proposed exemption stated that SafeDisc is not a rootkit. The
significance of that distinction, however, is not explained and does not prove to be particularly
helpful. If both rootkits and SafeDisc are device drivers that install at the kernel level and provide
the potential for privilege escalation from an outside source, although potentially different insome characteristics, both have the potential to create security vulnerabilities. The fact that with
SafeDisc, these vulnerabilities existed for six years before they were patched is a significant
concern in a time when the news is filled with stories about cybersecurity, security threats,
malicious worms, and denial of service attacks.640 Indeed, President Obama recently stated that“cyberspace is real. And so are the risks that come with it.” The President went on to state that:
638

Most emulation programs, some of which are used to bypass technological protection measures, also
install Ring 0 drivers at the kernel level. These emulators, and many circumvention tools, also create security
vulnerabilities. For instance, Daemon Tools or Alcohol 120, which have been used by some to bypass SecuROM
protection, have been reported to install Ring 0 drivers. See Tweakguides’ PC Game Piracy Examined,
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_9.html. Mark Russinovich states that: “[t]here’s no proof that Alcohol andDaemon Tools use rootkits to evade DRM, but the evidence is compelling. If they do their usage is clearly unethicaland even potentially runs afoul of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In any case, there’s no reason
for these products, or any product as I’ve stated previously, to employ rootkit techniques.” Mark’s Blog : Using
Rootkits to Defeat Digital Rights Management, http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2006/02/06/usingrootkits-to-defeat-digital-rights-management.aspx. (Last visited 5/10/10.)
639

See, e.g., Port80 Blog, You Can’t Catch What You Can’t See at
http://blog.port80software.com/tag/buffer-overflow-attacks/. (Last visited 5/10/10.)
640

See, e.g., Elinor Mills, Botnet Worm in DOS Attacks Could Wipe Data Out on Infected PCs
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10284281-83.html (Last visited 5/10/10.); John Sutter, No Joke in April Fool’s
Day Computer Worm, http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/24/conficker.computer.worm/index.html. (Last visited
5/10/10.)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 193“America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity.”641 When thefact that almost one billion personal computers were potentially at risk due to the vulnerability
created by Macrovision’s SafeDisc is combined with the evidence asserting that the nature of thisvulnerability was more profound than that which existed with the Sony rootkit situation, concern
is indeed warranted.
While it is true that the security vulnerability created by SafeDisc was discovered andfixed relatively quickly even though there was no applicable exemption to the prohibition on
circumvention, a full examination of the facts reveals further cause for concern. First, there is nodispute that the vulnerability existed for six years before it was discovered. Second, there is nodispute that the vulnerability was pre-installed (although dormant until access to a game using
SafeDisc was loaded) on a vast number of personal computers.642 Third, it was apparently first
discovered by a malicious entity, and only after the vulnerability was being “actively exploited”
did a Symantec researcher discover that the source of the problem was Macrovision’s SafeDisc.643
Opponents of the proposed exemption highlighted that the SafeDisc “vulnerability could
not be exploited by a remote user; ‘an attacker must convince a user to run an executable or musthave valid logon credentials to exploit this vulnerability.’”644 While this distinguishes the
SafeDisc vulnerability from other vulnerabilities, this distinction does not minimize the actual
risk created. As society has learned from the clever trickery involved in phishing and surreptitious
executables involved with “worms,” it is not difficult to deceive some number of people,
particularly if warnings are not issued before the vulnerability is exploited.
641

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON SECURING OUR NATION'S CYBER INFRASTRUCTURE
at May 29, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Securing-Our-NationsCyber-Infrastructure/. (Last visited 5/10/10.) “(This new approach starts at the top, with this commitment from me:
From now on, our digital infrastructure -- the networks and computers we depend on every day -- will be treated asthey should be: as a strategic national asset. Protecting this infrastructure will be a national security priority. We
will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient. We will deter, prevent, detect, and defend
against attacks and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”) The Register does not suggest that the
President was specifically referring to rootkits or similar phenomena, but they certainly relate to cybersecurity.
642
Some reports state that in addition to being pre-installed on computers running Windows XP andWindows 2003, it was also pre-installed on computers running Windows Vista. See UPDATE - Buggy game DRM
puts Windows users at risk, http://www.thestandard.com/news/2007/11/08/update-buggy-game-drm-puts-windowsusers-risk. (Last visited 5/6/10.) However, the same report claims that Vista was immune from the vulnerability due
to a pre-release security review. This fix in Vista does not appear to have resulted in further investigation regarding
the source of the problem.
643

Id.

644

R46 (Joint Creators) at 48.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 194

The opponents concluded that “the system worked. The research was done, and the
security problem was solved.”645 But these claims of success do not resolve the issue. Is avulnerability affecting potentially a billion personal computers that went undiscovered for six
years and was only discovered after bad actors were actively exploiting the flaw evidence that the“system worked”? While it is obvious that a relatively quick fix to an identified vulnerability isbeneficial, the security researcher’s goal is to identify potential vulnerabilities before the flaw has
been exploited. The opponents fail to find significance in the fact that the Symantec researcher
who discovered the flaw, found it only after someone was exploiting it. Moreover, while therecord does not reveal whether the Symantec researcher had to engage in an act of circumvention
in order to discover the flaw, Professor Halderman could not think of any way to identify and fix
the problem discovered that would not involve circumvention.646
The fact that Professor Halderman does not allege that SafeDisc was a “world-ending”
vulnerability mischaracterizes the burden on proponents of an exemption. While anecdotal
evidence, isolated occurrences, and inconveniences will not be sufficient to support an exemption,
the adverse effect of the prohibition need not be devastating in order for an exemption to be
warranted. The statute requires only that the proponents prove that the prohibition causes morethan an insubstantial adverse effect on noninfringing uses. Moreover, the significance of the
problem may affect the degree of evidence necessary to support an exemption.647 Preventing
security vulnerabilities is a significant socially-beneficial endeavor. The evidence of the existenceof a potentially severe vulnerability affecting up to one billion computers that went unidentified
for six years and was only discovered after being exploited demonstrates a verifiable problem, not
an isolated instance and certainly not a mere inconvenience. When the record demonstrates a
recent problem of such magnitude, and when it demonstrates that the prohibition on
645

T Metalitz, 5/7/09, at 197-198.

646

T Halderman, 5/7/09, at 267-268.

647

See 2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 26-27 (“The case made by Mr. Finkelsteinfor this exemption is also instructive for the manner in which it met the requisite showing. The evidence produced
did not prove that a substantial number of people have utilized or were likely to utilize an exemption. On thecontrary, the evidence tended to prove that very few people have had the motivation or technological ability tocircumvent this technological measure, to investigate the lists of blocked sites in filtering software or to report on,comment on or criticize such lists. Although there was little need for an exemption in quantitative terms (i.e., interms of the number of persons likely to take advantage of it directly), it was the qualitative need for an exemptionthat was controlling in this case; absent the ability of a few to carry out their noninfringing efforts notwithstanding
the prohibition set forth in section 1201, the many would not reap the fruits of such efforts – the information,
analysis, criticism and comment enabled by the quantitatively small number of acts of circumvention.”).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 195

circumvention has had or is likely to have an adverse effect on noninfringing activities that could
discover such flaws and vulnerabilities and prevent the harm likely to result from them, a case foran exemption may well have been made. However, it is necessary to consider whether the
research activity can be accomplished without an exemption.
d.

The risk of liability and the applicability of statutory exemptions

Even the opponents of Professor Halderman’s proposal, who suggest that he does not needto circumvent as much as he says he does, acknowledge that some degree of circumvention isprobably necessary in order to engage in the research that Professor Halderman has proposed todo.648 How much research has been chilled by the prohibition on circumvention may be difficult
to ascertain, but Professor Halderman’s comments and testimony provide support in the record toshow that some legitimate research has been, or is likely to be, adversely affected. The mere factthat legal action has not been brought against legitimate security researchers, or that permission
may be available to some researchers from some companies, does not diminish the fact that
legitimate researchers seeking to obey the law may understandably feel compelled to refrain fromresearch that involves circumvention.
The opponents argued that it is possible that one of the statutory exemptions in Section
1201 might apply. Opponents pointed primarily to Section 1201(j), but they also referred inpassing to Section 1201(g) (encryption research) and Section 1201(i) (protection of personallyidentifiable information) as providing a possible limitation on liability for researchers, such as
Professor Halderman.
Opponents suggested that Section 1201(j) is the statutory exemption that most closely
addresses security research, and they asserted that Professor Halderman has not demonstrated that
Section 1201(j) does not apply.649 They also stated that other statutory exemptions may apply tocertain activities of security researchers.650 They further contended that in the absence of proof
648

T Metalitz, 5/7/09, at 202-203.

649

R46 (Joint Creators) at 53.

650

Id. (referring to Sections 1201(g) (encryption research) and 1201(i) (protection of personallyidentifiable information). The opponents do not explain why these two exemptions might be applicable here,
apparently believing that merely by mentioning the two provisions, they have shifted the burden to the proponent.
That is not the case. A proponent of an exemption need not catalog each and every conceivable statutory exemptionthat might possibly apply, and then explain why it does not apply. Nor can an opponent cast doubt on a proponent’s
case by mere incantation of a statutory provision when the opponent does not bother to explain why that provision

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 196

that an applicable statutory exemption does not apply, no exemption should be granted.651
Following from this reasoning, opponents argued that the existence of a statutory exemption that
may apply precludes a finding that the noninfringing use has been adversely affected by theprohibition.
But the Register’s recommendation of 2006 reveals the flaw in this reasoning. 652 There aremany good policy reasons why Section 1201(j) should be interpreted to extend to this type of
security research in relation to measures placed on all works, but there is a complete lack ofclarity in the statutory language or the legislative history, either preceding the introduction ofSection 1201(j) into the bill or after its inclusion in the various legislative drafts of the bill, toprovide a comfortable fit between the statutory language and this factual manifestation of the
security vulnerability issue. Congress did not appear to anticipate this precise scenario involving
access controls creating vulnerabilities. Had Congress foreseen the problem, it is reasonable toconclude that it might have addressed the issue in more precise terms. But it appears that
Congress did not envision protection measures themselves becoming the source of a security flaw
or vulnerability. Rather, Congress appeared to be addressing firewalls and antivirus software thatwere used on computers, computer systems and networks to protect their respective contents. The
legislative history suggests that Congress wanted to encourage independent evaluation of suchsecurity systems as long as such research was done with the authority of the owner of thecomputer, system or network that they are protecting.
It is true that in many cases, security research might involve reverse-engineering or
encryption research, activities addressed in the statutory exemptions found in Sections 1201(f)and (g). But the goal of security research is not congruent with those particular activities. It may
also involve additional forms of circumvention in order to investigate and research security flaws
or vulnerabilities. Indeed, Congress appeared to recognize that fact between the publication of theCommerce Committee Report’s analysis653 of the bill (when Section 1201(j) did not exist) and theConference Report,654 which sparingly explained the justification for the new Section 1201(j).
would apply.
651

Id. at 53-54.

652

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 59.

653

Commerce Comm. Report at 36, 44-45.

654

Report of the Committee of Conference on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“Conference
Report”),H.R. Rep. No. 105-796, at 66-67 (1998).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 197

At the time of the Commerce Committee Report, July 22, 1998, Section 1201(j) did notexist. In the discussion of what was then Section 102(g) of the House Commerce Committee’s
version of the proposed WIPO Treaties Implementation Act (now Section 1201(g) of title 17), theCommerce Committee stated that:
In addition, network and web site management programs increasingly containcomponents that test systems security and identify common vulnerabilities. These
programs are valuable tools for systems administrators and web site operators to
use in the course of their regular testing of their systems’ security. The testing ofsuch “firewalls” does not violate Section 102 because in most cases the firewalls
are protecting computer and communications systems and not necessarily the
specific works stored therein. Accordingly, it is the view of the Committee that no
special exception is needed for these types of legitimate products.655
Thus, at that point in time, there was a view that computer security did not relate toprotection of copyrighted works, but rather to the protection of computers and systems. Computer
security was believed to be limited to network management tools and firewalls protecting thecomputer, computer system or computer network as a whole. A statutory exemption was notdeemed necessary because testing or circumvention of a firewall was not seen to affect a
copyrighted work. In the discussion of Section 1201(g), the House Manager’s Report stated:
Today, network and web site management and security tools increasingly containcomponents that automatically test a system’s security and identify common
vulnerabilities. These programs are valuable tools for systems administrators andweb site operators, to use in the course of their regular testing of their systems’security. Again, because these devices are good products put to a good use, they do
not fall within the scope of the statute.656
Thus, both of these important components of the legislative history of the DMCA
apparently assumed that computer and system security would be unaffected by the prohibition.
By October 8, 1998, the Conference Report expressed a different understanding. By thattime, Section 1201(j), relating to security testing, had been added to the list of statutory
exemptions. Section 1201(j)(1) defines “security testing” as:655

Commerce Comm. Report at 44-45.

656

House Manager's Report at 17.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 198

Accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network, solely for the
purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting, a security flaw orvulnerability, with the authorization of the owner or operator of such computer,computer system, or computer network.
The Conference Report stated:
Subsection (j) clarifies the intended effect of the bill with respect to information
security. The conferees understand this act to prohibit unauthorized circumventionof technological measures applied to works protected under title 17. The conferees
recognize that technological measures may also be used to protect the integrity andsecurity of computers, computer systems or computer networks. It is not the intent
of this act to prevent persons utilizing technological measures in respect ofcomputers, computer systems or computer networks from testing the security value
and effectiveness of the technological measures they employ, or from contractingwith companies that specialize in such security testing.
Thus, in addition to the exception for good faith encryption research contained in Section
1201(g), the conferees adopted Section 1201(j) to resolve the additional issues related to theeffect of the anti-circumvention provision on legitimate information security activities. First, theconferees were concerned that Section 1201(g)’s exclusive focus on encryption-related researchdoes not encompass the entire range of legitimate information security activities. Not every
technological means that is used to provide security relies on encryption technology, or does so to
the exclusion of other methods. Moreover, an individual who is legitimately testing a security
technology may be doing so not to advance the state of encryption research or to develop
encryption products, but rather to ascertain the effectiveness of that particular security
technology.
The conferees were also concerned that the anti-circumvention provision of Section
1201(a) could be construed to inhibit legitimate forms of security testing. It is not unlawful to test
the effectiveness of a security measure before it is implemented to protect the work covered undertitle 17. Nor is it unlawful for a person who has implemented a security measure to test its
effectiveness. In this respect, the scope of permissible security testing under the Act should be thesame as permissible testing of a simple door lock: a prospective buyer may test the lock at thestore with the store’s consent, or may purchase the lock and test it at home in any manner that heor she sees fit, for example, by installing the lock on the front door and seeing if it can be picked.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 199

What that person may not do, however, is test the lock once it has been installed on someone
else’s door, without the consent of the person whose property is protected by the lock.657
Congress recognized that Section 1201(g) addresses only one form of technologicalprotection measure -- encryption. However, computer, system and network security often extends
beyond encryption, and Congress also recognized that there is value in testing the effectiveness of
security measures applied to computers, computer systems and computer networks. Therefore,
Congress added a new provision encompassing security research in Section 1201(j). What
Congress apparently did not foresee is that measures that protect copyrighted works may create
vulnerabilities in computers, computer systems and computer networks. Even the analogy of door
locks seems to support this understanding of Congress’s view at the time of introduction ofSection 1201(j)—once the lock, or firewall, was placed on a computer system, the only way totest it was with the consent of the computer owner or operator. Absent here is any discussion of
the interaction between measures that protect access to works and measures that protect
computers. Also absent is express language that allows circumvention of measures on
copyrighted works installed on a computer that, in themselves, create security vulnerabilities.
Thus, Congress did not anticipate the manner in which technological measures that protect
copyrighted works would develop in the marketplace. The legislative history of Section 1201(j)suggests that Congress was concerned about the robustness of security measures placed oncomputers, computer systems and computer networks. Congress, at the time of enactment, had noreason to be concerned about flaws or vulnerabilities that might be introduced into the computer,system or network ecosystem by a technological protection measure itself, because the forms oftechnological protection measures which create security flaws or vulnerabilities had not been
introduced into the market for copyrighted works until after the enactment of the DMCA.
The optimal solution for the proponents of the proposed exemption would be to apply
Section 1201(j) to cover such situations. Section 1201(j) has the benefits of potentially applying
to all classes of works, existing perpetually, and exempting development, production, distribution
and employment of technological means for performing the acts of security testing that might beprohibited under Section1201(a)(2) (the anti-trafficking provision).658 The Librarian in this
657

658

Conference Report at 66-67.

17 U.S.C. § 1201(j)(4) limits the trafficking provision in Section 1201(a)(2) by allowing a person todevelop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing acts of security
testing. If Section 1201(j) was clearly applicable to the proponents’ intended uses of security testing, this subsection
would also allow the proponents to develop, produce and distribute the means for others to test their computers. This

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 200

rulemaking proceeding lacks the authority to resolve any problem in a comparably robust manner.
The Librarian is limited to exempting particular classes of works; any exemption issued is limited
to a three-year period; and the rulemaking has no effect on Section 1201(a)(2). This is the case
despite the fact that the statutory exemption in Section 1201(f) would, if applicable, more fully
resolve the overall concern raised by the proponents. As the Register stated in 2006:
Witnesses testifying in favor of the proposed exemption also asserted that §1201(j) is of insufficient scope because it addresses accessing computers, notaccess to works, and that the proponents seek access to works. As noted above, theexempted act of “security testing” involves “[a]ccessing a computer, computer
system, or computer network, solely for the purpose of good faith testing,investigating, or correcting, a security flaw or vulnerability.” The question iswhether such activity includes circumventing an access control that protects asound recording or audiovisual work that is stored on a computer or on removable
media that may be accessed through a computer. Proponents of an exemption inthis proceeding argued that § 1201(j) “appears to permit the ethical hacking into a
computer system for the purpose of detecting security flaws in the firewall
protecting the system. It is not clear that it permits the permanent disabling of atechnological measure on a specific work when the measure causes avulnerability.”659
Precisely the same question is raised in the present situation, except that “soundrecording” is replaced by the class of “video games.” The Register’s conclusion is similarly
congruent:
The language in § 1201(j) has not been construed by any court. While there is areasonable argument that its reference to “accessing a computer, computer system,or computer network solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, orcorrecting a security flaw or vulnerability” would include the case where
correcting the security flaw involves circumventing access controls on a computerthat protect a sound recording or audiovisual work rather than the computer itself,
it is not clear whether it extends to such conduct. Because of the uncertainty
whether § 1201(j) addresses the situation presented by this proposal, the Registercannot conclude that it is unnecessary to consider an exemption for the proposedclass of works. Under the circumstances, the proposed class must be considered on
its merits.660
provision might be improved by clearly allowing not only the means to test, but also to fix or correct identified
security flaws.
659

2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 59.

660

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 201

Although Congress envisioned a somewhat different factual scenario at the time it drafted
the statutory provision, the general concern expressed by the legislature at the time convinces theRegister that the present situation warrants handling under Congress’s established fail-safe
mechanism, which is embodied in this rulemaking. The Register finds that a security vulnerability
has been proved with regard to the class relating to video games and that an exemption is
warranted. The Register is also persuaded that the means of tailoring the class of works should be
guided by Congress’s general approach to the problem in Section 1201(j). Accordingly, informulating this particular class of works, the Register recommends following the congressionalmodel, as such:
Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technologicalprotection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, whencircumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for,investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if
(1)

(2)

the information derived from the security testing is used primarily topromote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer
system, or computer network; andthe information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a mannerthat does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

This formulation of the exemption differs from the language proposed by Professor
Halderman in a number of respects. The recommended language avoids the conjunctive language“and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal
computers,” because, upon reflection, such language would appear to require a security researcher
to know that a technological protection measure creates a security flaw or vulnerability prior toinvestigation. If a security researcher discovered that there were no problems with the measureprotecting the video game, then he or she would fall outside the exemption. The goal of security
research is to discover whether or not a measure protecting a video game contains a security flaw
that creates vulnerability. As Professor Halderman stated in his comment about SecuROM,“SecuROM reportedly may interfere with the operation of a PC’s CD and DVD burners andseveral software programs; some users even claim that SecuROM can even interfere with virus
and firewall protection software, opening a serious hole in the defenses of the PC. . . .”661 “And theongoing uncertainty over SecuROM’s safety could probably be settled by a single definitive
scientific study; instead, a regime of panic, protests, and litigation has taken hold over what may

661

C8 (Halderman) at 8-9.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 202

turn out to be nonexistent or easily reparable faults.”662 The evidence presented was not solely theinterest in confirming known security flaws or vulnerabilities, but rather to investigate whether
such flaws or vulnerabilities exist at all, and if they do exist, identify what they are. The ability toobjectively perform a scientific investigation can be both noninfringing and socially beneficial
when the investigation reveals that the technological measures are safe. Such a finding, forinstance with respect to SecuROM, would dispel concerns and offer marketplace stability for sucha measure. This would assist not only the public, but copyright owners as well, by offering themobjective verification whether a measure is safe for use on an array of copyrighted works.
The opponents pointed out that Professor Halderman “very carefully” did “not make any
assertions about any security vulnerabilities about SecuROM. He simply notes accurately that
there are class-action lawsuits pending, that a lot of allegations have been made, there’s a lot of
furor, there’s a very toxic atmosphere surrounding it.”663 But the opponents did not argue that
security researchers should not be able to discover whether or not a measure creates security
flaws or vulnerabilities. Instead, opponents argued that there is no evidence that researchers havebeen chilled by the prohibition in their ability to engage in research, and, inter alia, that various
statutory exemptions in Section 1201 could apply.664 The opponents admitted that “[o]f course
there’s no way to guarantee that there are [no flaws or vulnerabilities], but we also have an
ecosystem in place … that relies on people in the field to identify and bring to the attention of thedevelopers the flaws that may exist.”665
These arguments and statements by the opponents of the exemption do not deny that
security flaws or vulnerabilities may well exist in video games or that there may be sound reasons
to investigate whether a vulnerability exists. The opponents simply argued that such necessary
investigation is going on without an exemption through amorphous means by entities contained in
the “ecosystem” of “people in the field.” However, as explained above, the opponents did notshow that vulnerabilities identified in SafeDisc were disclosed or rectified in a timely manner orthat questions about SecuROM have been adequately investigated. Good faith security
researchers reasonably desire to play a role in the security ecosystem. Professor Halderman
provided direct testimony that his research is being adversely affected by the prohibition and his
662

Id. at 7.

663

T Metalitz, 5/7/09, at 199.

664

Id. at 199-206.

665

Id. at 207.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 203

testimony was credible. The proponents have demonstrated that the nature of the problem issocially significant and that good faith, reasonable investigation is a noninfringing and prudent
activity. The Register therefore recommends adopting the proposed exemption in order to clarify
that good faith investigation will be exempted even when the investigation fails to identify asecurity flaw or vulnerability. It is believed that permitting such good faith noninfringing research
will serve copyright owners, the security industry and the public.
The Register also believes that the inclusion of the conditions attached to the exemption,
which are modeled on the conditions Congress included in Section 1201(j), will eliminate any
potential abuse of this exemption that would harm the copyright interests of the owner of a work.
The language in the first condition, the information derived from the security testing is usedsolely to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, orcomputer network, is intended to encompass the activities of good faith researchers even when noflaws or vulnerabilities are discovered. If a researcher verifies that a technological protection
measure does not compromise the security of a computer, computer system, or computer network,
the information derived from that testing will nevertheless promote the security of the owner or
operator of such systems. An objective evaluation of a protection measure may be the only way todispel concerns raised about a measure. The independent verification of the safety of atechnological protection measure will help promote the security of the owner or operator of acomputer, computer system, or computer network.
The second condition in the exemption ensures that the information derived from goodfaith security testing, whether positive or negative, will be used in a responsible manner that does
not facilitate infringing or otherwise unlawful activity.
These two conditions are based on the factors set forth in Section 1201(j)(3), reflecting theRegister’s judgment that the Section 1201(j) exemption demonstrates Congress’s judgment as tothe conditions under which circumvention for the purpose of security testing should bepermitted.666

666

As noted above, it is unclear whether the exemption for security testing in Section 1201(j) applies tocases such as this, because it appears that Congress may not have anticipated that security testing issues would arisein the context of research involving access controls that protect a specific work of authorship, as distinguished froma computer, computer system or computer network. The Register recommends that the Librarian designate this classof works because of that lack of clarity, but in fashioning the class of works she has tried to remain faithful toCongress’s judgment that the propriety of circumvention for the purpose of security testing should be judged basedon the factors set forth in Section 1201(j)(3).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrightse.

June 11, 2010

Page 204

The application of the statutory factors

In applying the statutory factors of Section 1201(a)(1)(C), the Register finds that the casehas been made for designation of a class of works.
Factor One
Under the first factor, the availability of use of copyrighted works, the exemption
recommended will encourage the use of copyrighted video games on personal computers byallowing access controls applied to games to be inspected by legitimate, third-party security
researchers. Such good faith research will promote trust in video games protected bytechnological protection measures that control access, and will provide facts that may offset
rumors and speculation about such measures that are propagated online. Conversely, there is no
reason to believe that the exemption will in any respect make copyrighted works less available.
Factor Two
The second factor, the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation,and educational purposes, does not appear to be implicated by the proposal or the exemption.
Factor Three
The third factor, the impact that the prohibition on circumvention of technologicalmeasures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,scholarship, or research, is central to the recommended exemption. The prohibition is having an
impact on criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship and research. The crux of the exemption
relates to security research that currently cannot take place without implicating the prohibition on
circumvention. The proponent of the exemption seeks to engage in scholarship on the issue, but atleast part of his research plan is adversely affected by the prohibition. Although not directly
implicated by the exemption, to the extent that research and scholarship is enabled by the
exemption, such research and scholarship will presumably facilitate criticism, comment, news
reporting, and teaching on the findings of this research and scholarship.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 205

Factor Four
The fourth factor, the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market foror value of copyrighted works, also tends to support the exemption. Increasing the computer
security of the public will foster trust in well-tested protection systems and digital works
themselves. The restrictions on the purpose of the research and the use and maintenance of theresults will serve to prevent activity that enables infringement, while at the same time allowing
legitimate researchers to engage in research on equal footing with malicious researchers.
In relation to other factors that the Librarian considers appropriate, it is essential to stressthe heightened concerns for computer and network security that the country faces generally, andthe recognition of cybersecurity in particular. While the Librarian’s authority is limited in thisrulemaking, the ability to promote legitimate security research within that authority cannot be
overlooked. No one knows what security flaws or vulnerabilities will be exploited in the future,
but the identification of flaws or vulnerabilities by legitimate researchers before they are
discovered by wrongdoers is a significant concern.
Given the limited scope of the rulemaking proceeding, it is beyond the Librarian’s
authority to exempt all classes of works from the prohibition on circumvention whencircumvention is accomplished for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting
security flaws or vulnerabilities. Designation of a class of works must be based on a record that
demonstrates that users of that particular class of works are being or in the next three years arelikely to be adversely affected by the prohibition on circumvention. While it may be sociallybeneficial to permit security testing and research in relation to all classes of works, neither therecord nor the statute provide the Librarian with any basis to do so. It is worth asking whether itmakes sense to require security researchers to rely only on a regulatory exemption that depends
on which particular classes of works have been, or are likely to be, adversely affected in aparticular three-year period. As demonstrated by the records and results in the 2006 proceeding,and in the current proceeding, the problem is a moving target, with no ability to predict whichclass will suffer harm in the next three years.
The Register is sympathetic to the views of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce forCommunications and Information that this problem may arise in other classes. However, theRegister is constrained by the statute and the record in this rulemaking to recommend exemptions
for classes of works for which noninfringing uses are, or in the next three years, likely to beRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 206

adversely affected by the prohibition on circumvention. The only class of works for which suchan existing or likely adverse effect has been demonstrated is the class of video games. The
Register supports Congressional review of the problem to determine whether a statutory
exemption should be enacted.
E.

Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due tomalfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be consideredobsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is nolonger reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

Background. In each of the preceding rulemakings, requests were made to designateclasses of works involving dongles (i.e., hardware locks attached to a computer that work with
software to prevent unauthorized access to that software). In the course of those rulemakings,
evidence was presented showing that damaged or malfunctioning dongles can prevent authorizedaccess to protected software. The records in those proceedings demonstrated a genuine problem
for authorized users of expensive computer programs given that software vendors may have goneout of business or have otherwise been unresponsive. The concern centered on those who lose
their ability to gain access to their lawfully acquired copies of those computer programs due tomalfunctioning or damaged hardware that cannot be replaced or repaired.
Three years ago, an request to designate a class relating to dongles was again before the
Copyright Office. In making the recommendation whether it should be renewed, the Registerfound that the legal and analytical rationale for designating this class remained unchanged. The
key question then was whether there was evidence in the record that supported the new request.
The Register concluded that a sufficient factual showing was made in the 2006 proceeding todesignate the class. However, she stated that for purposes of clarity and consistency, thedescription of the class should be refined to include an explanation of what constitutes an“obsolete” dongle.667 The Register noted that this conclusion was consistent with the existing
exemption for “computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become
obsolete and which require the media or hardware as a condition of access.”668 She concluded thatsimilar language should be part of the description of the dongle class.669 After consideration of the667

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 33-34.

668

In that case, the class of works included a second sentence describing when a format is obsolete: “Aformat shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in thatformat is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.” Id.
669

Id. at 36.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 207

facts and the law, the Register recommended the following class:Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction ordamage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is nolonger manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available
in the commercial marketplace.670
Comments. Joseph V. Montoro, Jr., on behalf of Spectrum Software, Inc., has proposed thefollowing class of works related to dongles:“Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction
or damage or hardware or software incompatibilities or require obsolete systems
or obsolete hardware as a condition of access.”671
The italicized text represents language that departs from the language used to describe the classdesignated in 2006.
At the outset, Montoro explained that a dongle is a type of hardware that attaches to either
the printer port or the USB port of a computer in order to make secured software function. He
stated that dongles are sold along with certain types of software and are necessary for the user toaccess that software on a computer. He further explained that in order for the dongle to operateproperly, the operating system must support the hardware and the required device driver must be
installed.672
Montoro stated that there are four situations where an exemption is necessary to rectify actual
harm: (1) when dongles become obsolete; (2) when dongles fail; (3) where there areincompatibilities between the dongle and the operating system, and (4) where there areincompatibilities between the dongle and certain hardware.673 He asserted that a software user
670

Id.

671

C6 (Montoro) at 1.

672

A device driver is software that links certain types of hardware or peripherals to the operating systemof a computer. See http://www.pctechguide.com/glossary/WordFind.php?wordInput=Device%20Driver. (Last
visited 5/6/10.)
673

Mr. Montoro filed exhibits, attached to his initial comment, in support of these four categories. (1)Exhibits 1-6 were filed in support of the “obsolete” claim; (2) Exhibits 7-14 were filed in support of the “failure”
claim; (3) Exhibits 15-25 were filed in support of the “incompatible operating system” claim; and (4) Exhibits 26-32
were filed in support of the “incompatible hardware system” claim.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 208

must be able to circumvent the dongle when a software company is no longer in business andcannot offer support for its product. He commented that such “obsolete” dongles may leave
hundreds of customers stranded without a backup to access protected software. Second, heasserted that circumvention of access controls is necessary when a dongle malfunctions, isdamaged, or otherwise fails. He commented that obstacles arise when a defunct software
company can no longer offer support for the software and/or dongle. He specifically stated that insuch cases, users cannot receive maintenance or a replacement dongle if there is a malfunction ora failure. Third, he explained, that in some cases, the dongle has not been damaged but it isunworkable on a current operating system. He stated that an updated or new operating system
may render a perfectly functioning dongle useless, thereby preventing access to protectedsoftware. He specifically pointed out that Microsoft has listed certain dongle incompatibilities
with its operating systems. Fourth, he explained that a dongle is rendered useless when hardware
changes render the dongle useless. Montoro noted that the most prominent example is whenprinter port674-compatible dongles cannot be used because many newer computers do not have aprinter port.675 In addition, Montoro had stressed that the issue is as much about the computer
ecosystem as it is about dongles, in particular. He commented that the Register must realize thatthe dongle, the operating system software and the computer hardware work in tandem and that his
request necessarily covers all of these parts.676

674

A printer port is sometimes referred to as a parallel port. “In the computer world, a port is a set ofsignal lines that the microprocessor, or CPU, uses to exchange data with other components.” J. Axelson, Parallel
Port Complete 1-2 (1996). In 1996, a book on parallel ports observed that they were “found on just about every PC,
or IBM-compatible personal computer,” and described them as “a workhorse of PC communications. On newerPCs, you may find other ports, such as SCSI, USB, and iRDA, but the parallel port remains popular because it’scapable, flexible, and every PC has one.” Id. at 1-2. The book noted that “The parallel port was designed as a
printer port, and many of the original names for the port’s signals … reflect that use. But these days, you can findall sorts of things besides printers connected to the port.” Id. at 2. Eleven years later, a book on “Upgrading and
Fixing PC’s observed that “For years, all printers attached to a standard printer port (also known as a parallel port)
on your PC. Today, many plug straight into the USB port.” A. Rathbone, Upgrading and Fixing PCs for Dummies
49 (2009).
675

As noted above, Mr. Montoro provided several points of evidence that he said supported his request.
In May 2009, he sent along several additional documents, noting that they related to obsolete hardware and operating
systems and would be referenced in his testimony before the Copyright Office at the May 8, 2009, hearing on
Section 1201. E-mail from Joseph Montoro to Robert Kasunic, May 6, 2009.
In his testimony before the Office, Mr. Montoro stated the following: “You can’t simply have a dongle
and run a program without an operating system. You can’t run a program without a computer. . . . So to answer thequestion again, is it a question that the dongle malfunctions or is it the operating system or is it the hardware, and I
really submit that it’s all of these combined because nothing works by itself.” T Montoro, 5/8/09, at 54.
676

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 209

The Software & Information Industry Association (“SIAA”) commented that it does not oppose
renewing the existing class of works, but objects to expanding it beyond its current terms.677 SIIA
specifically disagreed with the addition of the phrase “hardware or software incompatibilities or
require obsolete systems or obsolete hardware as a condition of access,” when this phrase does
not even relate to the dongle itself. It asserted that an incompatible dongle is an interoperability
issue and is thus not related to access controls. Nevertheless, SIIA stated that it believes that an
exemption is necessary when a dongle malfunctions or is damaged and no replacement isreasonably available.
Like SIIA, Joint Creators submitted a comment opposing an expansion of the existing class.
They believed that the Register’s prior statements on the necessity of an exemption are just as
valid today as they were three years ago; that is: (1) the record does not support an exemption forcomputer software protected by dongles that are working properly and (2) an exemption is notwarranted simply when a dongle is malfunctioning or damaged, but where a replacement isreasonably available.678 They also commented that software or hardware issues associated withdongles may be resolved through industry cooperation.
On the other hand, commenter Lincoln Han supported the proposed class because: (1) dongles
have not gained market acceptance and are only used among niche market software developers;(2) customer usage will outlive the dongle and/or the software company; and (3) changes incomputer hardware and software will make many dongles unusable. NTIA has advised theRegister that, to the extent she finds that the record supports the continued designation of thisclass, it would support it as well as long as it is not expanded.679
Discussion. The record supports the continued designation of a class relating to dongles. A
proponent in this rulemaking must show by a preponderance of the evidence that there has beenor is likely to be a substantial adverse effect on noninfringing uses by users of copyrighted
works. Montoro has effectively met his burden of proof regarding dongles that are
malfunctioning or damaged and which are obsolete, a point on which there is no disagreement
among the commenters and the witnesses at the hearing. When the dongle no longer functions
677

SIIA is a trade association representing the software and information industry. It represents
approximately 500 high-tech companies that develop market software and electronic content for business, education,
consumers, the Internet, and entertainment.
678

See R46 (Joint Creators) at 43.

679

See NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 13.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 210

and is obsolete, there is a substantial adverse effect on non-infringing uses because there is noother means to access a lawfully acquired software program on a computer without resorting tosuch a device. As Montoro has demonstrated in the last three rulemakings, as well as in thecurrent record, when a dongle malfunctions or becomes obsolete, a person lawfully entitled toaccess it should be able to rely on self-help if remedial measures are not reasonably available inthe commercial marketplace.680 Moreover, the record reveals no evidence of harm to the market
for, or value of, copyrighted works protected by dongles since the issuance of the original
exemption in 2000.
The class, however, should not be expanded to include situations in which a replacement
dongle is reasonably available or can be easily repaired. Some copyright owners legitimately use
dongles to protect access to a program by unauthorized users and are entitled to the full benefit of
the prohibition as long as reasonable accommodations are offered for malfunctioning or damaged
dongles. Montoro has not demonstrated that the standard applied when crafting previous classes –reasonably available in the marketplace—is insufficient to meet the needs of users of copyrighted
works whose dongles malfunction or are damaged.
Montoro also argues that the current class should be expanded to reach situations
involving incompatibility between the dongle and a new or upgraded version of an operating
system. He states:
These dongles do not operate on their own. Beginning with Windows NT,
hardware and software programs could not “talk” to each other directly. Instead
they must communicate through a device driver. Some of these products are notcompatible because the driver for the operating system is not available. This is an
issue that needs to be addressed because the physical piece is intact. It has not beendamaged; technically it has not even had the opportunity to malfunction. However
it is obsolete on a current operating system.681

680

Among other unopposed factual bases for the continuing need for the existing exemption, Mr. Montoro
cites the acquisition of two of the largest dongle manufacturers—Rainbow Technologies and Aladdin Knowledge
System—by SafeNet, “leaving a boatload of dongles that would be discontinued and no longer supported.” T
Montoro, 5/8/09, at 43.
681

C6 (Montoro) at 5-6.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 211

In his testimony, Montoro went on to explain that “Dongles can cause incompatibilities
with hardware or software. A dongle that works perfectly well may suddenly experience problems
following a major operating system upgrade or a driver patch.”682
Montoro makes a compelling point: dongles are hardware, but they necessarily interact
with software by means of communication to the application being protected via the operating
system on the computer. Changes to an operating system, whether in the form of an update or
upgrade, may interfere with that communication between the dongle and the operating system insuch a way that legitimate access to the application is prevented. Moreover, Montoro also posits
that because particular applications often work as a component part of more a more complex
system of applications, interactions between applications may also lead to communication
problems between the dongle and the operating system.
Opponents respond that this problem is unrelated to the dongle itself and instead relates tointeroperability and not access.683 In some cases, this may be true. It is difficult to see why
creating a driver for a dongle to enable it to communicate with an operating system would“descramble a scrambled work, decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise []avoid, bypass, remove,deactivate, or impair a technological measure protecting access.”684 Creating a driver merely toenable a dongle to work with an operating system may not implicate the prohibition on
circumvention at all.
But opponents beg the question raised by Montoro when they state that this issue is, infact, an interoperability issue. This is not simply a matter of trying to run an application programon a system that is incompatible with that program. Montoro alleges that in some cases, afunctioning dongle will cease communicating with the operating system due to changes in theoperating system, the hardware, or incompatibilities between applications.685 It is not surprisingthat the concern raised does not address the dongle itself, because as Montoro fully agrees that, in
682

T Montoro, 5/8/09, at 40 quoting John Gillespie-Brown.

683
R17 (SIIA) at 4. See also T Metalitz, 5/8/09, at 55-56 (“I think what Mr. Montoro’s describing isinteroperability problems and again I don’t think that -- this is not new to this proceeding or perhaps this is made in asomewhat different context. I’m not sure there really is an expectation, which I think he indicated at the beginning of
his presentation, that every piece of software will work forever on any operating system that comes along, even if theoperating system on which it originally was designed, for which it was really designed becomes obsolete. I’m justnot sure that that’s a problem that falls within the scope of this proceeding.”)
684

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A).

685

C6 (Montoro) at 5-8.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 212

this scenario, the dongle is working properly. The problem is that the dongle is no longer
communicating with the program it is intended to protect, that is, it is no longer fulfilling its
intended function. As a result, the user who should be able to lawfully access the software is nolonger able to access the work due to the hardware and software communication incompatibility.
The dongle, a technological measure that controls access to the software, is not permitting accessto a work even though access has been authorized and the dongle is supposed to permit access.
However, Montoro fails to fully articulate the particular harm or the necessary remedial
measures that need to be taken. To the extent that the entire problem is the absence of a device
driver, the creation of a new device driver to enable the operation of the dongle would not appear
to implicate the prohibition on circumvention. But the problem may be more complicated.
Although Montoro states that what his company primarily does is “create a device driver” for thedongle, he also suggests that in addition to the functionality for the driver, he emulates thedongle, by creating a new program that provides the authenticating answer to the question that theapplication is asking.686 To the extent that Montoro is emulating the dongle rather than enabling it,
he may be defeating “unauthorized access” – the very function that the dongle is intended toprevent. If the emulation of the dongle replaces the dongle, the access restrictions that the dongle
is supposed to impose (i.e., individual use or site license of a specific number of users) might beeliminated. While there is no suggestion in the record that Montoro is enabling unauthorizedaccess, neither he nor the opponents of the exemption discuss the consequences of such apparent
emulation. The Register is left with a record that does not offer enough information to evaluate
whether it is actually necessary to circumvent an access control in order to overcome the“incompatible operating system” problem. Furthermore, Montoro fails to explain the scope of the
problem relating to dongles that cannot communicate with applications. He does not explain withany specificity the nature of the problems cited as examples or the remedial actions (or lackthereof) offered by the copyright owners or applications or operating systems. For example,
Montoro mentions the problem of a dongle that cannot be installed in Windows Vista. However,
he does not demonstrate or even assert that there are no reasonably available operating systems
that can perform the task or that the problem cannot be corrected by a professional through other686

T Montoro, 5/8/09, at 78. The Register notes that to the extent that Mr. Montoro (or anyone else) may
be “offer[ing] to the public, provid[ing], or other traffic[king] in … [a] service … that … is primarily designed … forthe purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under thistitle,” this rulemaking proceeding can offer him no immunity from liability for violation of Section 1201(a)(2), theprohibition on offering products or services that circumvent technological measures that control access to works.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 213

means. As the Register noted in 2000 and 2003, “there is no unqualified right to access works onany particular machine or device of the user’s choosing.”687
Moreover, Montoro specifically states that when an update to Windows Vista caused
many dongles to be unresponsive, it “took weeks before the issue was resolved.” In this instance,
Montoro has shown, albeit perhaps unintentionally, that the matter may have been rectified in themarket without the need to resort to circumvention.688
Although Montoro has articulated a potentially relevant problem, he has failed to build asufficient record to support an designation of a class that addresses software and operating system
incompatibilities. A sufficient record would require more detail about the precise cause of the
problems, the scope of the problem, and the noninfringing means available to resolve theproblem. The record before the Register does not, at present, support expansion of the class in thisregard.
The evidence presented in the record also does not support Montoro’s request to expand
the class in relation to obsolete hardware, specifically parallel ports on computers. While itappears to be the case that parallel ports may be in the process of becoming obsolescent, there isinsufficient evidence in the record to support the conclusion that parallel ports are currently, or in
the next three years, will be obsolete. Montoro does not even argue that parallel ports arepresently obsolete, but only that many new computers do not provide a parallel port. In order tomake a case for an expanded class of works in relation to obsolete hardware, Montoro would haveto sufficiently demonstrate that the hardware is, or is likely to be, obsolete in the next three year
period (either as a preinstalled item or as an optional configuration), that the unavailability of thisobsolete hardware would adversely affect noninfringing uses, and that copyright owners are notmeeting the legitimate needs of existing users. Montoro has failed to demonstrate the case for thisexpansion in the current record.
687

2000 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,569; 2003 Recommendationof the Register of Copyrights at 143. Moreover, the Register made that observation in recommending the rejectionof a proposal for an exemption based on the incompatibility of a particular operating system (Linux, preferred by the
proponents of the exemption) with a particular access control (i.e., CSS).
688

Similarly, Lincoln Han’s comment supporting Montoro’s proposed exemption mentions an instance
where he could not access a particular computer program due to hardware incompatibilities: “I had an IBM
Thinkpad 600x notebook computer, which has a parallel port. However, due to the proprietary design of the BIOS,
the parallel port and hence the dongle could not be recognized by the software. I was forced to use another desktop
computer with a more standard BIOS just for this software.” R26 (Han) at 1. Han tacitly admits that he was able tofind an alternate way to access the software, thus resolving the issue without substantial hardship.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 214

In sum, it is important to recognize that while the record may be deficient in the present
circumstances, it may be the case that there will be sufficient evidence to support an expandedclass of works if the request were to come before the Copyright Office in the next rulemaking in
2012. Three years hence, there may be clear and convincing proof that software incompatibilities
have indeed rendered some dongles obsolete and that computers with parallel ports are no longer
manufactured or otherwise available in the marketplace. Until such time, the Register finds thatthe relief Montoro seeks is limited to the class of works stated below.
In the case of a malfunctioning or damaged dongle that is obsolete, there is a demonstrated
substantial adverse effect on a noninfringing use, and the Register finds that the case has been
made to designate an appropriately delineated class of works. As such, the Register recommends
the following class of works, which is identical to the class designated in 2006:
Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction
or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is
no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably
available in the commercial marketplace.

IV.

OTHER CLASSES CONSIDERED, BUT NOT RECOMMENDED
A.

Subscription based services that offer DRM-protected streaming video where
the provider has only made available players for a limited number ofplatforms, effectively creating an access control that requires a specificoperating system version and/or set of hardware to view purchased material;
andMotion pictures protected by anti-access measures, such that access to the
motion picture content requires use of a certain platform.

Background. A recurring theme in all four rulemaking proceedings since 2000 has been
the desire on the part of some participants in the proceedings to be able to gain access to protecteddigital works on platforms of their choosing, rather than on the platforms or platform options
offered by content providers. In this proceeding, there were two proposals that sought exemptions
allowing circumvention of technological protection measures in order to provide access to motion
pictures on platforms other than those authorized by content providers or their licensees.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 215

Comments. One proponent, Megan Carney, requested an exemption to allow
circumvention of DRM-protected streaming videos offered by subscription based services, where
the provider has made players available only for a limited number of platforms. This restriction ofviewing options to a limited range of platforms, she argued, effectively constitutes an access
control by requiring a specific operating system version and/or set of hardware to view purchasedmaterial. In particular, Carney seeks to use Netflix’s “Watch Instantly” streaming video feature,
which installs digital rights management and runs only on certain platforms of computer softwareand hardware.689 “Watch Instantly” is included, at no charge, in Carney’s monthly Netflix
membership, but she is unable to use it because she does not own a compatible platform.690 She
seeks an exemption that would allow a user in her situation to create a separate program tocircumvent the DRM on the streaming service system in order to view streaming video content
made available by Netflix.691
Another proponent, Mark Rizik, requested an exemption to allow the circumvention of
motion pictures on DVDs protected by the CSS access control system, which requires the use of acertain platform for access. Specifically, Rizik would like to view, on a computer running on theLinux system that does not have a CSS-licensed video player, DVDs which are only viewable on
CSS-licensed players.692 Rizik sought an exemption that would permit the creation of an
unencrypted digital copy of the DVD by decrypting and extracting contents of DVDs for personalviewing purposes on Linux operating systems.693

689

C2 (Carney) at 1. As part of a Netflix movie rental membership agreement, “Watch Instantly” allows
a subscriber to instantly stream content to her own computer provided that the computer meets the technicalspecifications to install and run Microsoft’s proprietary “Silverlight” application. Silverlight offers a cross-platform
environment for Mac OS, Windows, and Linux operating systems. The number of times a subscriber can access thisstreaming video feature correlates with the subscriber’s monthly membership category. If a subscriber has anaccount that provides for unlimited access, the subscriber may access the streaming content as many times as thesubscriber wants. However, if the account is a fixed number membership account, the subscriber may only access acertain number of streaming videos set by the membership agreement using the “Watch Instantly” feature. For more
information, see www.netflix.com/HowItWorks. (Last visited 5/7/10.)
690

The reasons for her inability to access the technology are two-fold. While the “Watch Instantly”
feature will work on Apple computers running the OS X or Windows operating systems, Carney apparently cannot
install either because the Mac she is using is an older model that does not support either operating system. T
Carney, 5/8/09, at 219.
691

T Carney, 5/8/09, at 221.

692

C3 (Rizik) at 1.

693

Id. at 3.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 216

The proponents of both classes of works sought exemptions permitting them tocircumvent the access controls because, they contend, it is too expensive to acquire the hardware
and software with the minimum requirements necessary to view motion pictures on the
distribution mechanism of their choice. Carney was unable to access content provided by
Netflix’s “Watch Instantly” feature due to technical incompatibility issues between her computer(an Apple notebook with a Power PC Chip)694 and Netflix’s system requirements for the streaming
video service (requiring an Intel Chip). She contended that it would cost hundreds to thousandsof dollars to upgrade or purchase a new computer system that meets the technical requirements toutilize the “Watch Instantly” feature.695 She further contended that this platform requirement isbeing used as an access control that prevents her from viewing the streaming video content
included in her monthly subscription to Netflix.696
Similarly, Rizik stated that viewing DVDs on a Linux system is cost prohibitive becauseof the licensing fee that DVD CCA charges developers to include a DVD player in each copy ofLinux.697 Linux developers freely distribute the Linux operating system at no cost per download,
and thus, he asserted, they lack the revenue or resources to cover the necessary costs.698 Moreover,Rizik claimed that there is a lack of incentive for Linux developers to create a proprietary DVD
player for Linux because the limited number of Linux users does not constitute a commercially
viable market.699 Finally, he contended that it is too expensive to purchase a copy of the Windows
operating system and a larger hard drive to create a dual-boot system (using Windows and Linuxside by side), or to purchase a separate TV and DVD player.700
Both of the proponents also contended that these software and/or hardware platform
requirements are primarily used as anti-competitive tools in the marketplace. Carney stated that
Netflix’s Vice President of Corporate Communication has suggested that “the reason non-Intel
based Macs are unable to take advantage of Netflix’s ‘Watch Instantly’ feature is because Apple694

T Carney, 5/8/09, at 235-36.

695

Id. at 211.

696

C2 (Carney) at 2.

697

C3 (Rizik) at 2.

698

Id.

699

Id. at 3.

700

Id. at 8 & 10.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 217

refuses to license its DRM to Netflix.”701 She speculated that the inability to use the Netflix“Watch Instantly” feature on non-Intel-based Macs is because Apple, which offers its own movie
rental services, prefers to limit platform options in order to prevent competition702
Rizik suggested that the CSS licensing scheme for DVDs is also used as an anticompetitive tool. He explained that Linux users are ideologically at odds with Windows because
the “spirit of Linux” is opposed to a closed-source operating system, like Windows, which“obscures and limits functionality because its makers ‘know better’ than its users what theyneed.”703 He also critiqued the Register’s 2006 suggestion that Linux users create dual-bootWindows/Linux systems as “particularly abrasive and unfair… to require Linux users to ‘pay
fealty’ to Microsoft by purchasing a product, in order to gain access to motion pictures that
intrinsically have nothing to do with the Windows platform.”704 Finally, Rizik pointed out that
small operating systems like Linux will only have a “fair shake at the competition” if the DVD
player is “legally decoupled” from the DVD content.705
Both proponents argued that there are no reasonable, non-infringing alternatives tocircumvention for those wishing to engage in the activity affected by these platform requirements.
Carney asserted that there is no other way she will be able to access the purchased streaming
video content that is offered as part of her monthly membership in Netflix without circumventing
the system requirements of the “Watch Instantly” feature.706 She elaborated that the free streaming
video site “Hulu” does not have as wide of a selection compared to Netflix,707 and that she islimited to 18 DVDs a month if she uses her Netflix subscription solely to receive DVDs by
mail.708 Furthermore, she stated that if a person who is able to use the Netflix “Watch Instantly”
701

C2 (Carney) at 2.

702

Id.

703

C3 (Rizik) at 9.

704

Id.

705

Id.

706

C2 (Carney) at 2.

707

Id.

708

Id. This statement is not clearly supported by the options available on Netflix. The service provides
free access to the “Watch Instantly” feature for any of the “unlimited” plans it provides for a monthly charge. There
are a variety of unlimited plans which range from 2 DVDs at-a-time up to 8 DVDs at-a-time. With the higher priced
option, assuming that it takes five days to receive replacement DVDs, it would appear that one could receive up toRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 218

service could use it instead of a cable television subscription, it could result in cost savings for the
consumer.709
Likewise, Rizik claimed that there is no other suitable alternative to circumvention forviewing purchased motion pictures on DVDs on a Linux-based computer. As stated above, herejected the alternative method of using a TV and DVD player to watch purchased material
because, he said, it is more efficient as a matter of economics, living space, and portability towatch copied content from DVDs.710 Furthermore, while he conceded that a few options forLinux DVD players do exist, he argued that these systems are tied to the Linux systems Linspire
and TurboLinux, which are “obscure and unpopular compared to other Linux distributions such as
Ubuntu and Debian.”711 He further emphasized that he is not seeking a free DVD player for Linuxsystems, but rather argued that Linux should be able to offer its users the “second-best” option of
converting DVDs to video files in order to be able to view purchased material on Linuxsystems.712
The MPAA opposed the requested exemptions, characterizing the proponents’ complaints
as relating to “dissatisfaction with the platforms chosen for distribution of movies and otheraudiovisual content or the commercial terms on which they are offered, rather than to the ability
to engage in noninfringing uses” and arguing that “Section 1201(a)(1)(C) was not intended toprovide relief to customers who are unhappy with the commercial terms on which copyrightowners make their works available or the platforms on which they choose to distribute theirworks.”713 MPAA also observed that owners of motion pictures and television programming are
taking actions to meet the demands of consumers and to offer their content with options that
permit people to view movies and TV shows when and how they want.714

48 DVDs within a month. There is no evidence that Netflix imposes a monthly limit on the number of DVDs thatcan be received under a plan. The Netflix plan options state: “Exchange DVDs as often as you want.” Any limit
appears to be a practical one caused by mail handling and delivery time.
709

Id.

710

C3 (Rizik) at 10.

711

Id. at 7.

712

Id. at 11.

713

R45 (MPAA) at 6.

714

Id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 219

Time Warner also opposed the requests, asserting that technological protection measures
are actually used to facilitate the delivery of motion pictures and other works in new andinnovative ways, while appropriately managing the rights to those works.715 Time Warner statedthat by licensing its content to a variety of outlets, it aims to “ensure that even if a work is notavailable on one platform, consumers will be able to access such content in other ways.”716 It
noted, however, that “[a]llowing for circumvention of TPMs employed by services would
ultimately hamper our goal to provide access to content on as broad a range of platforms as
possible.”717
Joint Creators opposed the requests, noting that in past rulemakings, the Register has
recognized that tethering works to particular platforms provides copyright owners with someassurances that those works will not be easily placed on peer-to-peer file-sharing networks andthat this is likely to encourage some copyright holders to make their works available in digitalformats. It observed that the movies and television programs that the proponents desire to watch
are available in a variety of formats.718 It also asserted that Carney had failed to establish that anyof the services to which she was referring actually use operating systems as access controls.719
The Joint Creators made similar observations relating to Rizik’s proposal, noting that Linuxbased DVD players already exist and that there are also many other alternatives for accessing
motion pictures on DVDs or by other means.720
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information has advised
the Register that he believes that the record does not support granting the requested exemptions.721

715

R48 (Time Warner) at 3-7.

716

Id. at 8.

717

Id.

718

R46 (Joint Creators) at 23.

719

Id.

720

Id. at 25-26.

721

NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 13.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 220

Discussion. Similar exemptions to those proposed by Carney and Rizik have beenrequested in the past three rulemakings.722 Although the streaming video proposal presents a new
factual situation, the Register concludes that the legal arguments are fundamentally similar to theLinux proposals advanced in the previous three rulemaking proceedings, as well as to the Linux
proposal made in the current rulemaking. Likewise, arguments for the streaming video and Linux
exemptions fail for fundamentally the same reasons as the earlier Linux proposals, and neither
proposal warrants an exemption to the prohibition on circumvention.
As the Register noted in her recommendation in the 2006 rulemaking, “[i]n previous
rulemakings, exemptions have been denied … because although a user might have been prevented
from engaging in a noninfringing use of a work using a particular device, the user could engage inthe same noninfringing use of the work using a different device.”723 Neither Carney nor Rizik
have made a case for a departure from this principle. Nor have either of the proponents shownthat one cannot engage in their desired use of copyrighted works, gaining access to and viewing
motion pictures, albeit by means other than their preferred means of access, and opponents of the
proposed exemptions have demonstrated that such alternative means exist and are readily
available.
1.

Effect of Technological Measures

As a threshold matter, it is unclear from the record regarding the streaming video situation
what is actually prohibiting Carney from being able to access the Netflix “Watch Instantly”
feature and, in particular, whether the technological issue is centered around an access control.724
Although it appears that Carney does not have access to the feature for viewing motion pictures,
this is not necessarily because an access control is preventing access. By analogy, failing to haveaccess to FM radio programming that results from owning only an AM radio does result in a lackof access, but the cause for that lack of access is unrelated to the prohibition on circumvention. In
722

See 2000 Recommendation of Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,567-64,569; 2003
Recommendation of Register of Copyrights at 142-146; and 2006 Recommendation of Register of Copyrights at 7274.
723

See 2006 Recommendation of Register of Copyrights at 60 (citing and quoting 2000
Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 64,569 (“there is no unqualified right to access works on any
particular machine or device of the user’s choosing. There are also commercially available options for owners of
DVD ROM drives and legitimate DVD discs. Given the market alternatives, an exemption to benefit individuals whowish to play their DVDs on computers using the Linux operating system does not appear to be warranted.”).
724

T Carney, 5/8/09, at 234-39.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 221

Ms. Carney’s case, she does have online access to Netflix’s website, but does not have thesoftware and hardware necessary to view the on-demand motion pictures. Unlike thestraightforward radio analogy, the “Watch Instantly” service includes digital rights managementthat must be installed into the operating system in order to obtain access to this content. What isunclear is whether this digital rights management has anything to do with the lack of access, orwhether the denial of access is simply software and hardware incompatibility. In a sense, theproblem may involve both issues. Because Ms. Carney does not have hardware or software that iscompatible with the chosen digital rights management system, there are no alternative DRM
systems currently available on Netflix to provide Ms. Carney with access. And, because her
operating system is incompatible, it seems likely that even if there is DRM that may block her
access to the motion pictures she wishes to view, the circumvention of that DRM would be futile
because the operating system’s incompatibility would still prevent her from viewing the motion
pictures.
Regarding DVD circumvention, there is a record established in this rulemaking
proceeding that CSS qualifies as a technological measure that protects access. However,authorized decryption of CSS is available on many operating systems on the market which enable
access to the works contained on CSS-protected DVDs. Because the Linux OS is generally
distributed for free, but a license to decrypt CSS requires the payment of a fee, there appears to bea philosophical incompatibility between Linux and proprietary fee-based software to a greater
extent than there is a technological incompatibility. This view is supported by the fact that CSScompatible DVD players are in fact available for Linux systems.
2.

Alternatives to Circumvention

Many alternatives exist for both Carney and Rizik. There are streaming video alternatives
and other online content download sites and vendors that are able to service individuals who have
non-Intel chip computers.725 Furthermore, alternative methods to access content through online
distribution and on-demand access have continued to flourish since the previous rulemaking in
2006. Consumers may access online movie stores and/or vendors to rent or purchase electronic725

A consumer may watch streaming video on network sites, like www.abc.com, (Last visited 5/7/10.)
www.cbs.com (Last visited 5/7/10.), and www.nbc.com (Last visited 5/7/10.), or even purchase electronic sellthrough or video-on-demand downloads from vendors like the iTunes Store or through www.amazon.com (Last
visited 5/7/10.).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 222

copies of video content through an increasing number of websites, game consoles,726 and even settop-boxes.727 Streaming video content is also more readily being offered on websites offering
broadcast network programming. As explained in the 2006 rulemaking, “if a user may access thecontent on a DVD in readily-available alternative ways or may purchase the works in alternative
formats, the need for an exemption simply becomes a matter of convenience or preference.”728
Even if such streaming video services are not available for persons using certain
equipment or operating systems, other alternatives exist in the marketplace that offer access to theaudiovisual content that such persons desire to watch. The statute directs the Librarian to consider
the continued availability of copyrighted works for use. There are alternative formats on whichthese works may be viewed instead of streaming. Netflix’s core business model is thesubscription rental of DVDs; the “Watch Instantly” service is, at least at this point, a free add-on
to Netflix’s unlimited DVD rental service and not a service offered independently to the public.
Thus, the issue is not whether access to a particular motion picture exists, but whether it exists inthe format in which it is desired. The fact is that access does exist for Carney and those who aresimilarly situated. If Carney desires to obtain that access by means of Netflix’s “Watch Instantly”
feature, she may need to make a modest investment in a new computer or a new operating system.
Otherwise, she can still rent DVDs of the movies she wishes to watch (either from Netflix orelsewhere) or take advantage of other video streaming or download services.
Carney’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is essentially a claim that either all
works should be available in every format by means that are compatible with every device or that
all works that are made available to some users must be made available to all users. Neither
argument is sustainable.
Netflix appears to be offering its “Watch Instantly” service in order to insure continued
subscriber retention. As noted above, it offers this service to customers who can fulfill therequirements for free. Moreover, the service is not limited to computers. Subscribers canpurchase a set-top device in order to make this free service available on television sets.
726

See Sony Playstation and PSP, http://www.us.playstation.com/News/PressReleases/480 (Last visited

5/7/10.) .
727

See Blockbuster’s Video On Demand set-top-box, at
http://www.blockbuster.com/outlet/electronics/onDemand?cid=ondemandFromHome (Last visited 5/7/10.); see also
http://www.vudu.com/ (Last visited 5/7/10.).
728

See 2006 Recommendation of Register of Copyrights at 74.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 223

In short, there is undisputed evidence that many alternatives exist for access to the works
in question.
With respect to Rizik’s proposal, Linux users also have more alternatives tocircumvention than Rizik suggests. Contrary to the argument that there is a lack of DVD players
on popular Linux systems, DVD CCA points out that Dell, a major computer manufacturer andvendor, currently offers three PCs that come configured with the Ubuntu 8.04 Linux operating
system with DVD Playback.729 Moreover, DVD CCA observes that “CSS has been licensed
royalty-free on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to a variety of manufacturers.”
Moreover, Linux users still have the option to view their purchased material utilizing a television
and a DVD player, a dedicated DVD player (such as a portable DVD player with its own screen
for viewing DVD), or the aforementioned alternatives. The plethora of alternative options
available to view video content precludes the need to recommend an exemption to enable a subsetof Linux users the option to circumvent access controls in order to view purchased DVDs that are
known to be inaccessible without a licensed player.730
3.

Cost-Effectiveness and Convenience

In each of the three preceding rulemakings the Register, relying on the legislative historyof Section 1201, has emphasized that “‘mere inconveniences … do not rise to the level of a
substantial adverse impact’ on noninfringing uses – a necessary showing in order to justify
exempting a class of works from the prohibition on circumvention.731 In each case, the Register
has concluded that complaints about the inability to view DVDs on computers running the Linux
operating system relate, ultimately, at best to such mere inconveniences.732

729

R37 (DVD CCA) at 14, n.1.

730
See http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevicesList?lnkce=nrd-l&trkid=425738&lnkctr=nrd-l-n(Last visited 5/7/10.) (containing a list of available devices to connect to a television, one of which costs less than
$79.00).
731

See 2000 Recommendation of Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,558, 64,562, 64,569; 2003
Recommendation of Register of Copyrights, at 11, 17, 18, 108, 113-15, 119, 123, 130, 143-145, 157, 170, 171; and2006 Recommendation of Register of Copyrights at 22, 71-72, 74.
732

See 2000 Recommendation of Register of Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,569; 2003 Recommendationof Register of Copyrights at 143-145; and 2006 Recommendation of Register of Copyrights at 74.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 224

Carney suggests that the streaming video feature of Netflix may give consumers a costsaving benefit by substituting for a monthly cable subscription,733 but it is not the purpose of thisrulemaking to provide consumers with the most cost-effective manner to obtain commercial video
content. If the consumer wants to obtain content, there are many reasonably-priced alternatives
that may fulfill the consumers’ wants and needs. Regarding Linux users, seeing that the cost of
standalone DVD players has decreased since the previous rulemaking,734 purchasing a DVD
player is not an unreasonable, cost-prohibitive alternative and circumvention of CSS cannot bejustified due to an alleged absence of inexpensive means of access to the desired works. Though acomplete absence of reasonably priced alternatives might tend to support an exemption, that is not
the record in this proceeding.
Moreover, as noted above, mere consumer inconvenience is not sufficient to support an
exemption. The statute does not provide the Register with the responsibility of enabling the mostconvenient method of consuming video content. For example, while Carney may desire aplatform “that is most useful for home entertainment purposes in general,”735 the fact that such aplatform does not, in her view, yet exist in the marketplace does not compel the recommendationof an exemption in order to facilitate the creation of such a platform.. Although the choices inways to view video content may not be offered in all consumers’ preferred manner, consumers
have a variety of options at their disposal.
With respect to the Linux proposal, the fact that a consumer may not be able to play aparticular work on the Linux platform of the consumer’s choice is not sufficient to justify an
exemption when there are other platforms and alternatives available to view purchased material.
The proponents have advanced requests aimed to satisfy their convenience andpreferences as to how they would like to access media and have failed to demonstrate a need for
remedial action. Accordingly, the Register cannot recommend either exemption in light of thealternatives and options that exist in the marketplace today.
B.

733

Lawfully purchased sound recordings, audiovisual works, and software
programs distributed commercially in digital format by online music andC2 (Carney) at 2.

734
DVD CCA’s comments provide evidence the cost of standard DVD players has decreased since theprevious rulemaking and are now available for purchase over the Internet for $50.00. R37 (DVD CCA) at 15, n.2.
735

C2 (Carney) at 2.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 225

media stores and protected by technological measures that depend on thecontinued availability of authenticating servers, when such authenticating
servers cease functioning because the store fails or for other reasons; andLawfully purchased sound recordings, audiovisual works, and software
programs distributed commercially in digital format by online music andmedia stores and protected by technological measures that depend on thecontinued availability of authenticating servers, prior to the failure of theservers for technologists and researchers studying and documenting how theauthenticating servers that effectuate the technological measures function.

Background. Many technological measures regulate user access to copyrighted works via
connections to remote online authenticating servers. In contrast to access controls that arephysically bundled with a copy of the work and maintain the same restrictions over their usefullife, access controls linked to authenticating servers allow rights-holders to remotely operatetechnological measures that control access to their works.736 In the typical case, anauthenticating server is used to determine whether or not a user seeking access on a particulardevice to a work that he or she has purchased or licensed is in fact authorized to do so.
Sometimes this authentication occurs only when: (1) the work is added to a new device; (2) a new
operating system is installed on a device; or (3) in the event of a system crash.737 In otherinstances authentication occurs more frequently.738 In any event, access control via anauthentication server always requires that the server be operational; if the server is shut down, theauthentication process cannot take place.
Christopher Soghoian of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
has proposed two classes of works pursuant to Section 1201(a)(1)(A) to allow the circumvention
of “technological measures that depend on the continued availability of authenticating servers”(or “DRM servers”) for the following two uses: (1) by consumers, for access to and ordinary
enjoyment of purchased works, and (2) by technologists and researchers, documenting thefunction of the technological measures. The Register does not recommend approving either of736

See R46 (Joint Creators) at 58.

737

See, e.g. Walmart memo quoted at http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walmart-shutting-dow.html,(Last visited 5/10/10.) and cited in C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 7 (describing the access limitations on purchased
access-controlled music files after authenticating server ceases operation).
738

See, e.g., Google Video Store (beta) at 5, available at
http://www.google.com/press/guides/video_overview.pdf, (Last visited 5/10/10: Click on “Quick View” to accessthe document) cited in C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 2.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 226

these classes, primarily because there is no evidence that the ban on circumvention has produced
any adverse effects so far, and there is only speculation that it is likely to cause any adverse
effects within the next three years. In the discussion that follows, each proposed class will be
discussed in turn.
1.

Circumvention for access and ordinary use of works

Comments. Soghoian’s proposal relating to DRM servers that control access to “lawfully
purchased sound recordings, audiovisual works, and software programs” was based upon several
recent instances where “online music and media stores” tether their commercial distribution ofdigital works to DRM servers that ceased operation. Inclusion in the class would be conditioned
upon the particular authentication server ceasing to function; circumvention of operational DRM
servers was not contemplated. Soghoian argued that “when the DRM servers malfunction or are
shut down by their operators, consumers lose the rights to engage in the legitimate, non-infringing
usage of content that they lawfully purchased and reasonably expected to continue using.”739
However, there is no evidence that such a loss of rights has actually occurred thus far.740
Soghoian first cited to examples of stores offering the purchase and/or rental of digitalmotion pictures (Circuit City’s Digital Video Express and Google Video Store), both of whichused DRM servers and both of which shut down their servers when they decided to discontinue
their services.741 Upon the shut down of the servers, the Circuit City and Google stores offered
full refunds to purchasers.742
Next, Soghoian offered the example of three digital sound recording stores that initiallyshut down their DRM servers without offering remedies to customers, only to reverse course after
consumer complaints. One of these, Yahoo Music, after an initial announcement that it wasceasing operations and that its DRM servers would be shut down, later offered full refunds to its

739

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 2.

740

See, e.g., T Soghoian, 5/6/09, at 78 (“MR CARSON: Okay. So, so far no one has been adversely
affected? MR SOGHOIAN: So far, no one has been adversely affected.”).
741

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 4-5.

742

Id. at 5.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 227

customers.743 Another, Microsoft’s MSN Music Store, ceased operations in 2006 when Microsoft
established a new music store – Zune Marketplace – but kept its DRM servers running in order toprovide authentication for consumers who had purchased DRM-protected tracks. In 2008, MSN
announced that it would be shutting down the server, and then announced that it would keep theserver operational through at least the end of 2011.744 The third digital music store example is thatof Walmart which, as part of its move towards making all of its downloads available DRM-free,announced the cessation of its authentication server operations.745 Yet, like MSN, Walmart
changed course and ultimately decided to keep its DRM servers operational indefinitely.746
Soghoian also offered three examples of digital media stores who currently sell or havesold copies protected by DRM servers, copies he argued are “vulnerable to similar loss of usage
in the event of a shutdown, breakage or obsolescence of the stores’ authenticating servers”: (1)Apple’s iTunes Store, which offers motion pictures and sound recordings; (2) Microsoft’s Zune
Marketplace, which offers sound recordings; and (3) Napster, which now sells exclusively DRMfree music, but that had until May 2008 sold sound recordings tethered to DRM servers.747
Soghoian argued that, given the record he presents of digital media stores shutting down743

Id. at 6, n. 16 citing Antone Gonsalves, Yahoo to Reimburse Customers Of DRM-Protected Music,
Information Week,
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/music/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209601121. (Last visited
5/10/10.)744

Id. at 6, n. 12 citing Eliot Van Buskirk, Microsoft Backtracks on MSN Music DRM Abandonment,
Wired.com, http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/06/microsoft-backt/. (Last visited 5/10/10.)
745
Id. at 7, n. 19 citing BoingBoing.com, WalMart shutting down DRM server, nuking your musiccollection -- only people who pay for music risk losing it to DRM shenanigans,
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walmart-shutting-dow.html. (Last visited 5/10/10.)
746

Id., citing BoingBoing.com, WalMart now says they'll keep the DRM servers on forever,
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/10/walmart-now-says-the.html. (Last visited 5/10/10.) Soghoian’s assertion in
his July 10, 2009, letter to the Copyright Office that Walmart will shut down its DRM servers on October 9, 2009, isincorrect. Soghoian’s source for this claim [Mark Hefflinger, Walmart to End Support for DRM-Wrapped Songs in
October, Digital Media Wire, (June 1, 2009) http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/06/01/walmart-end-supportdrm-wrapped-songs-october. (Last visited 5/10/10.)] bases its report upon a Hypebot post
[http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/06/walmart-shutting-down-drm-download-servers.html (Last visited
5/10/10.)] that in turn bases its report on a Walmart memo of September 26, 2008. This 2008 announcement was, as
explained above, later withdrawn.
747

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 7-9. Soghoian also mentioned software (one video game and one
operating system), access to which is controlled by DRM servers. Id., at 9-10. However, this category of works is
not “distributed . . . by online music and media stores,” and thus doesn’t fit into his proposed class. Soghoian also
failed to demonstrate any situation when a DRM server controlling software access has even been threatened with a
shutdown.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 228

their DRM servers, and given the increased migration of customers from physical CDs to
downloads, “it is likely that in [the next three years] at least one DRM-media store and/or its
authenticating servers will shut down.”748 Such a likelihood, he maintained, will adversely affectthe noninfringing use of the protected works by those who purchased them. He proposed thatexempting circumvention of DRM server technology after a server has stopped functioning is areasonable remedy for these adverse effects under three of the four Section 1201(a)(1)(C) factors.
Factor One
Soghoian argued that the first factor, the availability for use of copyrighted works,
supports the designation of his proposed class because once a DRM server is disabled, consumers
who have purchased works that require authentication through the server will find that they are
denied “the lawful ability, for which they have paid, to access and use purchased content.”749
Such use, Soghoian asserted, is plainly noninfringing because it does not involve the exercise of
any of the Section 106 exclusive rights because it consists solely of accessing and privately
performing copies of purchased works.750 Additionally, Soghoian dismissed the option of burning
CDs from downloaded works as an alternative to circumventing the access controls as“inadequate,” challenging the quality of such reproductions, and pointing out that such a“burning” option is not available for downloaded motion pictures.751
Factor Two
Regarding the second factor of “the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival,
preservation, and educational purposes,” Soghoian presented hypothetical scenarios of libraries
and colleges purchasing DRM-protected works that, after the DRM servers have been shut down,
cannot be used with new operating systems or on other devices, thus becoming functionallyinaccessible.752

748

Id. at 12.

749

Id. at 11.

750

Id. at 12.

751

Id. at 16-17.

752

Id. at 12-13.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 229

Factor Three
Soghoian did not raise any arguments with regard to the third statutory factor in his
exemption request.
Factor FourWith regard to the fourth factor, “the effect of circumvention of technological measures on
the market for or value of copyrighted works,” Soghoian asserted that, because his proposal
would only allow circumvention in order to access works already purchased, such circumvention
would have no impact on the market for those works.753
In addition to arguing the merits of his proposal based upon the statutory factors,
Soghoian asserted that exempting circumvention of server-based access controls on digital media
files is consistent with classes of works designated by the Librarian in prior rulemaking
proceedings. He maintained that the class designated in 2006 relating to hardware locks attached
to a computer that interact with software to prevent unauthorized access to that software (alsoknown as the dongle exemption)754 supports his proposal because “DRM schemes are simply asoftware version of [dongles] that apply not only to software, but also to audio and video files.”755
Soghoian also found a relevant precedent in the 2006 class relating to obsolete computer
programs and video games distributed in formats that require the original media or hardware as acondition of access.756 He argued that, like computer programs that are considered obsolete
because the necessary operating systems are no longer available to support their formats, digital
download files become obsolete when they can no longer communicate with their DRM servers
and thus cannot be accessed.757
Joint Creators, Time Warner, and the AACS-LA all submitted separate comments
opposing an exemption for the circumvention of access controls linked to DRM servers.

753

Id. at 13.

754

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 33-36.

755

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 14.

756

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 24-33.

757

See C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 14-15.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 230

Joint Creators made four primary arguments against the exemption. First, they contended
that access controls linked to DRM servers are exactly the “use-facilitating” kinds of access
controls sought to be protected by Congress,758 and that an exemption aimed at such controls
would inhibit their implementation, and thus delay or prevent the introduction of new services.759
Time Warner joined the Joint Creators in this argument, maintaining that authentication servers
are prevalent in all digital distribution channels and that they “facilitate the incremental additionof rights.”760 These benefits, Time Warner stated, outweigh the “unsubstantiated concerns” raisedby Soghoian.761
Second, Joint Creators asserted that there has been no evidence of adverse effects uponnoninfringing uses from the prohibition on circumventing DRM server-linked access controls,
and that no likelihood of such effects exists either. Joint Creators emphasized the responses by
proprietors of digital media stores to customer complaints, and stated that, either through refunds
or through stores keeping DRM servers operating, “the scenario of . . . customers being stranded
really has not occurred.”762
Third, Joint Creators argued that the terms of service of a digital download store “willvirtually always provide that the stores in question may discontinue service when necessary,”
meaning that customers who purchase DRM-protected works have in fact only purchased theability to access the works for as long as the DRM server is operational.763
Fourth, according to Joint Creators, sufficient alternatives to circumvention exist such thatcircumvention is not necessary and thus, an exemption should not issue. Joint Creators pointed tothe options of burning copies of purchased works onto blank CDs,764 and of purchasing the works
in other unprotected formats (such as physical CDs).765 They also argued that, even after a DRM
758

See House Manager’s Report at 6.

759

See R46 (Joint Creators) at 58.

760

T Aistars, 5/6/09, at 34.

761

R48 (Time Warner) at 14.

762

T Metalitz, 5/6/09, at 23.

763

R46 (Joint Creators) at 60.

764

Id. at 61.

765

T Metalitz, 5/6/09, at 28-29.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 231

server ceases operation, those works already authenticated on a customer’s device or devices willcontinue to be accessible despite lack of contact with the server, and that the specter of acomplete, unanticipated loss of access to purchased works is thus a very unlikely prospect.766
The Joint Creators also challenged Soghoian’s comparison of circumventing
authentication servers with classes from previous rulemakings. They argued that the grounds forcircumventing access controls in the cases of dongles and obsolete computer programs and video
games are easily distinguishable from those Soghoian presented in support of his proposal.767
They maintained that a more apt comparison is to earlier, rejected proposals relating tocircumvention of access controls in order to use copyrighted works on particular platforms.768
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information has advised
the Register that he believes that the record does not support granting the requested exemption.769
Discussion. The Register must decline to recommend the proposed class for the simple
reason that the proponent has not sustained his burden of demonstrating that the prohibition on
circumvention of access controls either has produced, or is likely to produce, adverse effects on
noninfringing uses of this class of works. As the NOI announcing the present rulemaking stated,“actual instances of verifiable problems occurring in the marketplace are generally necessary inorder to prove actual harm.”770 No such instances have been shown. If, in the absence of any
current adverse effect, an exemption is to be based solely upon anticipated harm, “the evidence of
likelihood of future adverse impact during that time period [must be] highly specific, strong andpersuasive.”771 Evidence of such a compelling nature is lacking in this instance.
In evaluating a proposed class, the Register must first determine whether the technology at
issue is in fact “a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under766

R46 (Joint Creators) at 62; T Metalitz, 5/6/09, at 27.

767

R46 (Joint Creators) at 63.

768

Id.

769

NTIA Letter at 13.

770
See Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control
Technologies, 73 Fed. Reg. at 58,075 (Oct. 6, 2008).
771

House Manager’s Report at 6.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 232[title 17].”772 Technological measures employed on digital downloads that operate through remoteauthentication servers are intended to control access to copyrighted works when in operation, andthus meet the statutory definition. In addition, such measures also control access even whendisabled. Soghoian has demonstrated that a disabled server, by failing to authenticate legitimate
users, in fact still effectively controls access to copyrighted works – at least to some degree.
Thus, technological measures employed on digital downloads that are intended to operate throughremote DRM servers, but can no longer do so because the servers have been disabled, qualify as
the kind of access controls for this rulemaking to properly address.
The fundamental question in evaluating this proposed class is whether the adverse effects
complained of by the proponent, “DRM-based stores that cease to operate or abandon theirauthenticating server system cause their customers to lose full, and often any, access to, and thus
use of, their lawfully purchased works,”773 are real, verifiable and reasonably likely to recur.
There are several persuasive reasons in the record to answer this question in the negative.
Regarding the three categories of copyrighted works that Soghoian identifies in his
proposed exemption, he presents no information that one of them, software in this instance, iseven being sold by online retailers using authentication servers. Thus, the Register’s review ofadverse effects must be restricted to sound recordings and audiovisual works. Works in the latter
category, according to Soghoian’s comments, were sold by two entities, Circuit City and Google,
who, upon deciding to withdraw from the market, fully refunded their customers’ purchasecosts.774 In his testimony, Soghoian stated that he was willing to narrow his exemption to permit
circumvention only “in the event that the service does not provide any remedy for consumers.”775
He further stated that “the refund is a totally appropriate and satisfactory remedy.”776 Since therecord of DRM-protected audiovisual works shows only that there were two defunct services that772

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A).

773

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 11.

774

Id. at 4-5.

775

T Soghoian, 5/6/09, at 58.

776

Id. at 77.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 233

provided acceptable remedies, there is no reason for the Register to consider this category ofworks in her determination.777
Regarding sound recordings, of the three retailers who stopped selling DRM-protected
works, Yahoo Music has provided full refunds.778 The two others, MSN Music and Walmart,
were faced with consumer backlash after announcing that they were going to shut down theirauthentication servers, and thus announced that they would keep the servers operational, in
MSN’s case through 2011, and in Walmart’s case, indefinitely.779 The record demonstrates that,
thus far, there have been no adverse effects on the noninfringing use of DRM-protected soundrecording downloads since purchasers retain identical access and use abilities. Soghoian points
out in his request that consumer outcry has “so far prevented customers from losing complete
access to their lawfully purchased works.”780 This point reinforces the Register’s conclusion thatit has not been demonstrated that customers have lost any access.
Soghoian’s case in support of his proposed class focused more on future harm, arguingthat “there is no reason to believe that other companies or services that fail or are shut down in the
future will provide similar corrective steps.”781 He based this conclusion upon the belief thatcompanies smaller than Microsoft and Walmart will not have the resources to provide refunds orkeep authentication servers operating.782 He also suggested that given the state of the economy,
more companies will be jettisoning their DRM-protected music businesses,783 and that in doing so,they may decide simply to deactivate their authentication servers without advance warning.784
This appears to be pure conjecture. Soghoian presented no evidence supporting his claim that if
another online retailer decides to disable its authentication server, it will leave affected consumers
without a remedy. To the contrary, the record shows that, even though their Terms of Service
777

iTunes also sells DRM-protected audiovisual works, but because none of its activities were cited as
evidence of past harm or likelihood of future harm, the Register does not consider them as a category of works thenoninfringing use of which is at risk.
778

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 6.

779

Id. at 5-7.

780

Id. at 2.

781

Id.

782

Id. at 11.

783

T Soghoian, 5/6/09, at 10.

784

Id. at 54-55.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 234

clearly allow them to disable their authentication servers,785 two companies (MSN Music andWalmart) are instead keeping them operational. Thus, the prediction that within the next three
years consumers will be prevented from accessing and using DRM-protected works due to thecessation of operations by an authentication server falls into the hypothetical zone.
Because the record provides no evidence for the allegation that the prohibition on
circumventing disabled authentication servers has caused, is causing, or will cause adverse effects
on noninfringing uses of copyrighted works, it is unnecessary for the Register to speculate upon
whether an exemption would be appropriate if the opposite were true. However, it is worth noting
that, in the case of every sound recording download service cited by Soghoian, disabling theauthentication server does not deprive the user of all access to the purchased works. As Soghoian
himself notes, “while [loss of access] will not necessarily happen immediately after a particular
store is discontinued, it does take place once the DRM authentication servers are shut down and auser decides to take any action with respect to the works that requires a connection [to] theservers.”786 In other words, a DRM server that has been shut down still leaves the user with atleast one, if not more, accessible copies of the protected works, although that access might cease
depending upon other actions by the user, such as when a new operating system is installed. In
contrast, the 2006 exemptions regarding “original only” access controls and malfunctioning
dongles that Soghoian references concern DRM technologies that, absent circumvention,completely prevent the noninfringing use of the works they control.787
It is also unnecessary for the Register to address whether the uses that Soghoian alleges
have been adversely affected are in fact noninfringing uses. Nor is Soghoian’s analysis of thefactors in Section 1201(a)(1)(C)(i)-(iv) relevant in light of his failure to make a satisfactory
threshold showing that the alleged harm has occurred or is likely to occur. For the reasonselucidated above, the Register recommends rejection of this proposed class.
2.

Circumvention for technologists and researchers to document how
authentication servers function

Comments. Soghoian’s second proposal would exempt circumvention of the same DRM
785

See, e.g., R46 (Joint Creators) at 60.

786

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 11.

787

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 24-33 (“original only” access controls),
33-36 (dongles).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 235

servers controlling access to the same categories of works as his first proposal, discussed above.
However, instead of being for the direct benefit of consumers seeking to circumvent defunctaccess controls, it would aid “technologists and researchers studying and documenting how theauthenticating servers that effectuate the technological measures function.”788 Such study anddocumentation, the proposal states, would take place “prior to the failure of the servers.”789
This class is intended to support Soghoian’s first proposed class790 by providing consumers
with documentation about how DRM servers function, so that they can actually exercise theexemption. In Soghoian’s words, “it is far less likely that even if people have the ability, thelawful ability to circumvent the DRM after the service fails, if they are not able to gather the
information necessary ahead of time, there is not going to be much they can do.”791 Gathering
information required to circumvent DRM protections linked to authentication servers, Soghoianasserted, requires research into messages being sent “back and forth between the customer’s
computer and the central DRM authentication server,” as well as observing “the computer
instructions that are executed as a song, movie, or piece of software is decrypted and run.”792
According to Soghoian, attempting to study such interactions when the server is inoperative will
be difficult, if not impossible.793
Soghoian’s legal argument in support of this class rests upon a comparison with the 2006
“rootkit” class. There, the Librarian designated a class of works relating to “technologicalprotection measures that control access to lawfully purchased [sound recordings and associatedaudiovisual works on CD] and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise
the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose ofgood faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.”794
Soghoian’s proposal focuses on the purpose of the “rootkit” class, contending that because his
788

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 1.

789

Id.

790

See C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 19 (“the purpose of the researcher exemption, which is to effectuate
the general user exemption when circumvention is needed, …”).
791

T Soghoian, 5/6/09, at 19.

792

C10A & 10B (Soghoian) at 18.

793

Id. Along the same lines, Soghoian also argued that even a research exemption for the window of time
between the announcement that an online retailer’s DRM servers will be shut down and the actual shut down date is
insufficient because future DRM server shutdowns may come without warning. Id. at 20.
794

2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 53-54.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 236

proposed class for researchers is also intended solely for good faith testing, investigation, andcorrection, (with the additional purposes of reverse engineering and documenting), it too meetsthe requirements for designation as a class of works in this rulemaking proceeding.795 He does
point out however, that “the cases of failed DRM and copy protection systems do not easily fit
into the category of ‘security flaw or vulnerability.’”796
As with Soghoian’s first proposed class, Joint Creators, Time Warner, and the AACS LA
all submitted comments opposing his proposal relating to circumvention of DRM servers for the
purposes of studying and documenting their functions.
Joint Creators argued that the research proposal is unjustified: “because there is no needfor an exemption for consumers, there is similarly no need for an exemption aimed at research
activities.”797 They also contended that his request is merely a thinly veiled attempt at achieving
an exemption from the Section 1201(a)(2) prohibition on providing circumvention tools andservices.798 Finally, Joint Creators stated that the comparison to the 2006 “rootkit” class is
inapposite because Soghoian’s proposal does not address “security flaws and vulnerabilities.”799
In addition to these objections, Time Warner presented testimony that designation ofSoghoian’s “researcher” class could put much electronic content at risk. Time Warner argued
that its authentication server systems worked to expand the range of content it offered toconsumers as well as the range of uses.800 Designating a class that permitted researchers tocircumvent DRM servers controlling access to works purchased from online retailers would,
Time Warner warned, result in the disruption of other DRM server functions because “the hack is
the hack” and it applies to the technology, not to the particular work or category of works being
protected.801

795

C10A & 10B at 19.

796

Id.

797

R46 (Joint Creators) at 64.

798

Id. See also Post-Hearing Response of Joint Creators to Copyright Office Questions relating toAuthentication Servers of July 10, 2009.
799

R46 (Joint Creators) at 64.

800

T Aistars, 5/6/09, at 32-37.

801

Id. at 36.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 237

The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information has advised
the Register that he believes that the record does not support designation of the proposed class.802
Discussion. Soghoian’s proposal for the benefit of researchers ultimately rests upon thesame speculative argument as his proposal for the benefit of users. Since the record makes clearthat the purpose of the “researcher” class is to facilitate the ability to circumvent under theumbrella of the “user” class, then, perforce, the arguments supporting the researcher class fail on
the same basis as those supporting the user class. This failure to demonstrate an adverse effect on
noninfringing uses obviates the need for the Register to discuss the arguments regarding the othermerits and disadvantages propounded regarding the researcher class. And, as with the user classdiscussion, the Register declines to evaluate whether or not the researcher class would passmuster assuming that adverse effects had been demonstrated. The Register also declines to
speculate upon the fate of the researcher class assuming that the user class was recommended.
Accordingly, the Register recommends the rejection of this proposed class.

C.

Software and information recorded, produced, stored, manipulated ordelivered by the software, that a forensic investigator seeks to copy, activate,or reverse engineer in order to obtain evidence in a court proceeding.

Background and comments. Commenter Glenn Pannenborg proposed a class of works forthe benefit of forensic investigators seeking evidence in court proceedings. Forensic investigators
are experts in examining evidence, typically hired by a party to a court proceeding.803 According
to Pannenborg, forensic examiners practicing in the fields of financial or information technology
may be faced with evidence “that is recorded, produced, stored, manipulated or delivered bysoftware covered under 17 U.S.C. 1201,” or evidence that may be “the software itself, as in apatent or licensing dispute.”804 He asserted that in order to obtain access to such evidence, aforensic investigator may have to circumvent a technological protection measure in violation ofSection 1201(a)(1)(A).805

802

NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 13.

803

C7 (Pannenborg) at 1-2.

804

Id. at 2.

805

Id. “[C]opy, activate, or reverse engineer” are the activities listed by the proponent, which the Register
understands, given the context of the proposal, to include circumvention.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 238

Pannenborg set forth a number of arguments relating to forensic investigators’ need to beable to engage in circumvention, maintaining that “[i]ncomplete or inaccessible evidence impacts
the rights of litigants and criminal defendants to due process. Likewise restrictions that limit
acquisition of evidence hinder the ability of law enforcement and civil regulators to conduct
investigations and prosecutions necessary for public safety.”806 Pannenborg maintained thatmethods of gaining access to encrypted evidence other than circumvention are inadequate. For
example, he noted that the statutory exemptions for government activities (Section 1201(e)),
encryption research (Section 1201(g)), and security testing (Section 1201(j)) do not apply toforensic investigation.807 Also, he stated that seeking a court order to compel the production of
encrypted information is unlikely to be effective if the software manufacturer is beyond the reachof the court, lacks the requisite technological knowledge, or refuses to fully comply with anorder.808
Joint Creators opposed Pannenborg’s proposal because, in their view, he has not shownthat copyright owners of a work at issue in a court proceeding would refuse to authorize
circumvention for forensic analysis.809 Furthermore, they argued that there is no evidence thatrecalcitrant copyright owners, whether litigants or third parties, would not be subject to court
orders authorizing circumvention.810 Finally, the Joint Creators suggested that the statutory
exemptions for government activities and reverse engineering could apply to circumvention forforensic analysis, a factor that mitigates the need for the Librarian to exercise his authority under
Section 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D).811
NTIA comments. The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications andInformation has advised the Register that he believes that the record does not support granting
Pannenborg’s request.812

806

Id.

807

Id. at 3.

808

Id.

809

See R46 (Joint Creators) at 44-45.

810

See id. at 45.

811

See id. at 45-46.

812

NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 13.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 239

Discussion. The Register finds that the proponent in this case has not met the statutory
burden of proof. In the first place, Pannenborg fails to intelligibly describe the nature of
authorship of the proposed class of works, proposing initially that the class should consist of“computer software,” and then stating that it is both software and “information” protected by thesoftware.813 In addition, the proposal’s references to “information”814 and “data”815 raise thequestion of whether what is being sought by a forensic investigator is in any way a copyrighted
work protected by title 17.816
More significantly, Pannenborg presents no compelling evidence, and provides noconcrete examples, that noninfringing uses of works in the proposed class have been or will beaffected by the circumvention ban. Indeed, he provides little information about the works towhich he has apparently been denied access. Panneborg refers to two forensic investigations he
has conducted, but the information he provides is sketchy and is insufficient to support theconclusion that the prohibition on circumvention has created problems in this area. In each case,counsel “made informal objections” that “the request lacked relevance because the installation
media allowed only one installation and was unusable without circumvention of the digitalprotection.”817 However, it is difficult to discern how a relevance objection could be sustained onsuch grounds, and the precise nature and context of the “informal objection” are also unclear,providing no reasonable basis upon which to evaluate whether Section 1201’s prohibition on
circumvention in fact adversely affected the proponent’s ability to engage in a noninfringing
use.818 If the proponent had provided more information concerning these examples, an evaluationof whether and the extent to which the prohibition on circumvention caused such an adverse
effect might have been possible.

813

C7 (Pannenborg) at 2.

814

Id.

815

Id. at 3.

816

The statute is clear that the subject matter of this rulemaking proceeding in that exemptions is confined
to “noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C)(emphasis added). Mere information or data, without the application of “some minimal degree of creativity,” Feist
Publ’ns v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 435 (1991), is not copyrightable and thus not eligible to be,
or to be included in, a “class of copyrighted works.”
817

818

C7 (Pannenborg) at 3.

For purposes of this analysis, the Register assumes that the proposed use was noninfringing, but the
proponent has not actually attempted to make the case that the use was noninfringing.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 240

Regarding the Joint Creators’ argument that Pannenborg has not demonstrated an
unwillingness on the part of copyright holders to authorize access control circumvention in thecontext of court proceedings, it appears to the Register that it is fair to interpret the “informal
objections” described by Pannenborg as at least two examples of just such unwillingness, or, atleast, reluctance. These examples by themselves, of course, cannot support Pannenborg’s
proposed exemption, particularly since he presents no evidence of himself or anyone else
requesting a court order compelling the copyright owners to authorize circumvention, not tomention evidence of a court refusing to issue such an order or of a copyright owner refusing tocomply.819 The Joint Creators argue that, “as a matter of discovery, motions practice, orotherwise, the court would generally have the authority to order the owner of copyright in the data
which is the subject of the forensic investigation to authorize circumvention of the access control
in question.”820 Whether or not this is in fact the case, Pannenborg has provided no evidence one
way or the other, much less any evidence of a court order failing to achieve the intended result
due to the copyright owner being beyond the court’s jurisdiction, lacking technologicalknowledge, or simply refusing to comply.821
Finally, regarding the question of whether Panneborg’s proposal is pre-empted because
one of Section 1201’s statutory exemptions already applies,822 the Register finds that none of thestatutory exemptions offer sufficient protection for the circumvention of access controls for the819
The question of whether a litigant has requested authorization to circumvent, either from a copyrightowner or the court itself, is addressed here only in the narrow context of a court proceeding in which a need arises tocircumvent an access control in order to gain access to potential evidence. The Register is by no means suggesting ageneral rule that permission to circumvent must first be sought and denied in order for a user to be able todemonstrate an adverse effect on a noninfringing use.
820
R46 (Joint Creators) at 45. Pannenborg argues that, in some cases, a software manufacturer might bebeyond the jurisdiction of the court in which the litigation is pending and may choose not to comply with a court
order. He also suggests other situations in which the software manufacturer may choose not to, or may not be able
to, comply. But such speculation appears to be contrary to established procedures for obtaining discovery in civil
litigation. It is typical for state judicial procedures to permit the issuance of subpoenas to obtain discovery,
including the production of documents and things, in connection with litigation pending in other states. See, e.g,
Calif. C.C.P. §§ 2029.100 et seq. (eff. Jan. 1, 2010); Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, §§ 9-401 et seq.
(2009); Va. Code. Ann. §§ 8.01-410 et seq.(2009). A federal court may also issue a subpoena for production of
documents and things in connection with litigation pending in a federal court in another state. See Fed.R.Civ.Pr.
45(a)(2). The Register will not assume, especially in the absence of any evidence, that a software manufacturer(who is likely to be the copyright owner) would refuse or be unable to comply with a properly issued subpoena or a
court order to either provide an unencrypted copy or to authorize decryption of an encrypted copy..
821

822

See C7 (Pannenborg) at 3.

See, e.g., 2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 181 (“Where a statutory scheme
exists for particular activity, persons must utilize such statutory exemptions to accomplish their goals or provide
evidence why the statutory exemption is unavailable to accomplish a noninfringing use . . .”)Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 241

purposes of forensic analysis. Ultimately, however, given the failure of Pannenborg to show that
Section 1201’s access control circumvention ban is having or will have any effect upon thenoninfringing use of works in his proposed class, the question of whether a statutory exemption
may be available is moot. The Register, therefore, declines to recommend that the Librarian
designate this proposed class of works.
D.

Audiovisual works delivered by digital television ("DTV") transmission
intended for free, over-the-air reception by anyone, which are marked with a"broadcast flag" indicator that prevents, restricts, or inhibits the ability ofrecipients to access the work at a time of the recipient's choosing andsubsequent to the time of transmission, or using a machine owned by therecipient but which is not the same machine that originally acquired thetransmission.

Background. In 2003, the FCC adopted regulations mandating a broadcast flag for digital
broadcast television programming. The broadcast flag can be described as a digital code
embedded in a DTV broadcasting stream, which prevents digital television reception equipmentfrom redistributing broadcast content. The broadcast flag affects receiver devices only after abroadcast transmission is complete. The goal behind the broadcast flag requirement was toprevent the unauthorized redistribution of digital broadcast television content over the Internet.
However, the FCC’s regulations were overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit in 2005.823 Nevertheless, in the 2006 rulemaking, a number ofcommenters sought relief targeting broadcast flags for television and radio broadcasts, noting thatsuch restrictions could possibly interfere with the personal recording of digital broadcast content
for time-shifting and format-shifting purposes.824 The Register rejected those requests stating that
there was no broadcast flag mandate in effect for either television or radio at that time. The
Register concluded that a class could not be designated based upon non-existent regulations.825
Comments. Matt Perkins proposed the following class of works:826

823

American Library Association v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 693 (D.C. Cir. 2005)(FCC found to have lacked
the statutory authority to implement a broadcast flag regime.)824

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 83.

825

Id. at 84.

826

C9A (Perkins) at 1.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 242

Audiovisual works delivered by digital television ("DTV") transmission intended
for free, over-the-air reception by anyone, which are marked with a "broadcast
flag" indicator that prevents, restricts, or inhibits the ability of recipients to accessthe work at a time of the recipient's choosing and subsequent to the time oftransmission, or using a machine owned by the recipient but which is not the samemachine that originally acquired the transmission.
Perkins believed that broadcasters and copyright owners will experiment with copy
protection measures to restrict the recording of broadcast television content soon after thecompletion of the DTV transition in June 2009.827 He asserted that consumers will experiencefrustration if their television recording privileges are in any way restricted.
The National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) argued that Perkins has failed toprovide evidence either that actual harm currently exists or that it is likely to occur in the ensuing
3-year period.828 Specifically, it argued that the request must be rejected because there are no
devices to which it would apply.829 It concluded that the suppositions in support of the request are
pure speculation and a class cannot be designated in this rulemaking any more than it could in2006 when the Register found a similar proposal to be premature.830
NAB stated that even if there were a broadcast flag to which an exemption might apply,
the proposed exemption should be rejected for several reasons. NAB asserted that since the flag
would affect redistribution, it would not be an access control technological protection measure forpurposes of Section 1201(a), and therefore it would not be subject to action in this rulemaking
proceeding.831 NAB also asserted that the proposal is devoid of any explanation or justification as
to what noninfringing activity the prohibition on circumvention of the broadcast flag ispreventing.832 NAB concluded that Perkins’ proposal is fatally flawed because it fails to827
Congress initially established February 17, 2009, as the date for the completion of the transition
from analog to digital broadcast television. See Pub. L. No. 109-171, Section 3002(a), 120 Stat. 4 (2006). In
early 2009, however, Congress passed the DTV Delay Act, extending the date for the completion of thenationwide DTV transition from February 17, 2009, to June 12, 2009. All full-power television broadcast
stations now transmit only in a digital format.
828
R40 (NAB) at 2. MPAA, Joint Creators, and Time Warner agree with NAB and all assert that the
proposal is premature and nothing has changed since 2006 to alter that conclusion.
829

Id. at 2.

830

Id.

831

Id. at 3.

832

Id. at 4 -5.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 243

demonstrate that noninfringing activities are being prevented by the prohibition on
circumvention.
NAB also stated that Perkins made no case at all, much less a prima facie case,demonstrating why the plethora of sources providing access to most of the audiovisual works thatwill be transmitted over DTV are “insufficient substitutes for accomplishing [his] noninfringing
use.”833 In support of this statement, NAB explained that the Internet and mobile wireless devices
are becoming increasingly popular modes of disseminating movies and television shows. It addedthat consumers can view videos on subscription sites, through pay-per video downloads, and via
commercial-supported streaming video, as well. NAB reiterated that works transmitted overDTV are not protected by access control technological protection measures, but asserted that,even if they were, the explosion in the fast and efficient availability of such works on DVDs, theInternet, and other digital networks eviscerates any claimed need for the relief proposed here.834
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information has advised theRegister that he believes the record does not support designating the proposed class.835
Discussion. Perkins has failed to make his case. He has generally stated that a broadcast
flag would interfere with the recording of digital television programming for personal use.
However, he has not met his burden of proof in showing a need for any action. There is no
broadcast flag mandate for digital television broadcasts in effect and it is highly speculative as towhether broadcasters and copyright owners will implement measures to restrict consumer
recording privileges in the new DTV era.
The record does not indicate that there currently exist any devices that include broadcast
flags. NAB asserts that no such devices exist, and the proponent of the class does not contradict
this assertion, instead stating only his prediction that copyright owners will deploy the broadcast
flag.836 Furthermore, the proponent’s theory in support of designating the class lacks any
explanation or justification as to what non-infringing use would be prevented by the prohibition
on circumvention with respect to the broadcast flag and fails to provide evidence that actual harm
833

Id. at 6.

834

Id. at 9.

835

See NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 13.

836

R40 (NAB) quoting C9A (Perkins) at 1 (“It must be expected that, following the complete shut-off ofstandard analog TV signals in 2009, broadcasters and copyright owners will do more to experiment with these copy
restrictions.”)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 244

exists or that it is “likely” to occur in the ensuing three year period. NAB also appears to becorrect in asserting that the proposal exemption should be rejected because it affects redistribution
and is not focused toward an access control technology measure for purposes of Section 1201.
Three years ago, in reviewing a similar request, the Register observed,
The proponents offer no evidence to suggest that such systems willbe established, nor is such evidence readily available – it is a matterof conjecture and opinion. Moreover, even if an audio or television
broadcast flag were to be established or re-established, the precise
substance of the requirement is likewise unknown at this time.
Nonetheless, the comments assert that such a system will adversely
affect their ability to make noninfringing uses. That is speculation.
No evidence has been presented that a “broadcast flag” is currently
being deployed and the case has not been made that a “broadcast
flag” is likely to be deployed in the next three years (or whether it
would constitute an access control). The proposed exemption is
simply premature at best.837
The same observation is true with respect to the current proposal. For the reasons statedabove, the Register recommends that the proposal be rejected.

E.

Audiovisual works embedded in a physical medium (such as Blu-ray
discs) which are marked for "down-conversion" or "downresolutioning" (such as by the presence of an Image Constraint Token"ICT") when the work is to be conveyed through any of a playbackmachine's existing audio or visual output connectors, and therefore
restricts the literal quantity of the embedded work available to theuser (measured by visual resolution, temporal resolution, and color
fidelity).

Background. This class was also proposed by Matt Perkins.838 Here, Perkins focused his
exemption request on the Blu-ray Disc.839 He states that the Blu-ray disc's data structure allows a
837

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 84.

838

C9B (Perkins) at 2.

839

Blu-ray, also known as Blu-ray Disc, is the name of a next-generation optical disc format jointly
developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association, a group of consumer electronics, personal computer, and media
manufacturers. The format was developed to enable recording, rewriting and playback of high-definition video, as
well as storing large amounts of data. The format offers more than five times the storage capacity of traditionalDVDs and can hold up to 25GB on a single-layer disc and 50GB on a dual-layer disc. See http://www.blu-

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 245

disc publisher to assign an image constraint token (“ICT”) to an audiovisual work. He further
explained that a licensed Blu-ray disc player responds to that token by “down-rezzing” theelectronic video signal when conveyed over an “untrusted” analog connection (i.e., a trio of RCA
cables). He asserted that no such constraints occur when the signal is conveyed over the preferred,“trusted” digital pathway (High-Definition Multimedia Interface [“HDMI”] incorporating Highbandwidth Digital Content Protection or [“HDCP”]).
Perkins admitted that there is little evidence that ICTs are currently embedded in available
Blu-ray discs. He nevertheless asserted that the possible inclusion of an image constraint token
will cause user frustration because program content will not be seen in the promised highdefinition format.
Perkins argued that ICT denies access to discarded video details until a condition issatisfied (HDMI connectivity), and therefore that ICT qualifies as a 1201 access control measure.
Perkins suggested that the Register should carefully consider measurements of fidelity, such as
visual, temporal, and auditory resolution, not only to inform assumptions on what does and does
not qualify as a 1201 access control, but also in judging the substitutability of one format foranother in her balancing assessments.840
Comments. AACS LA841 filed comments in opposition to Perkins’ request. It argued thathis proposal fails to satisfy the burden of proof required in this proceeding. It asserted that, as
stated in the NOI, a proposal to designate a class “must be based on a showing that theprohibition has or is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on noninfringing uses of aparticular class of works.” It argued that Perkins has failed to make such a showing here, as hehas provided no evidence or description of any actual harm or any adverse effect on noninfringing
uses nor any evidence that the ICT has ever actually been used. Rather, it stated that Perkins
simply mentions the possibility that an increase in ICT use at some point in the future would“cause user frustration.”842 AACS LA concluded that the proposal, based purely on hypotheticals,
should be denied.

ray.com/info. (Last visited 5/7/10.)
840

Melody Reineke was the only party to file comments in support of Perkins= request. See R18(Reineke) at 2.
841

AACS LA (“Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator”) is a cross-industry
effort founded by members from key industry sectors including studios, consumer electronics firms, andinformation technology companies. AACS LA explains that AACS is Aan effective technological protection
measure@ covered by the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, including the Aaccess control@
anticircumvention provisions of Section 1201(a). AACS LA states that it licenses AACS for use to protect
against unauthorized access to or use of prerecorded video content using the Blu-ray Disc format. R35 (AACS
LA) at 1-3.
842

Id. at 8.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 246

AACS-LA also asserted that the proposal is unwarranted because the potential problem
described by Perkins is a rapidly disappearing legacy issue related to early iterations of highdefinition television sets. It stated that almost every high definition television currently
manufactured contains the HDMI connections necessary to allow a user to view Blu-ray content
in its highest resolution. Further, to the extent there are some users affected by the existence of an
ICT, AACS-LA stated that this by no means renders even those users unable to access the work.
It explained that this circumstance only means that the consumer cannot view the content in thehighest resolution possible, but still could be able to view the content in a resolution higher thanthat displayed by a DVD. AACS-LA asserted that this does not constitute a substantial adverse
effect on noninfringing uses of a particular class of works. Accordingly, it urged that the proposal
should be denied.843 The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
has advised the Register that he believes the record does not support the proposed class ofworks.844
Discussion. Perkins’ proposed class request cannot withstand scrutiny. He has failed tomeet his burden of proof demonstrating that designation of the proposed class is warranted withregard to the willful downconversion of high definition programming recorded on Blu-ray discs.
He has not shown that the prohibition on circumvention has or is likely to have a substantial
adverse effect on a clearly identifiable noninfringing use. Similarly, he has not demonstrated theexistence of actual harm, or the likelihood of future harm that would be rectified by designating
the proposed class. Specifically, he has not provided evidence that ICTs are currently being used
on Blu-ray discs to restrict users from accessing the highest resolution format offered by Blu-ray
discs. Further, AACS-LA correctly asserts that the proposal is unnecessary because the potential
problem described by Perkins is a rapidly disappearing legacy issue related to early generationhigh definition televisions. Perkins request appears to be a cure in search of a disease. For theforegoing reasons, the Register recommends that the proposed class of works be rejected.
F.

Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook
editions of the work (including digital text editions made available byauthorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling
either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that
render the text into a specialized format.

Background. Electronic books (“ebooks”) are books that are distributed electronically anddownloaded by users to their personal computers or portable electronic devices. On personal
computers, the dominant formats for ebooks have been the Adobe’s “.PDF” format and theMicrosoft Reader’s “.LIT” format. Personal electronic devices coupled with ebook reader
applications, such as the Palm Reader, Amazon’s Kindle, or Apple’s iPhone or iPod Touch, have843

Id. at 7-9.

844

See NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 13.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 247

begun expanding the ebook market. Although the public’s acceptance of ebooks has until recently
been sluggish, the development of these portable electronic devices capable of delivering andconveniently rendering electronic books has spurred demand in the marketplace. For the first timesince access to ebooks has been raised in this rulemaking, ebooks now represent a vibrantly
developing market.
The benefits of ebooks were immediately apparent to the blind and visually impaired.
Ebooks present significant advantages to this community of users. When a book is in electronic
form, it offers the potential for accessibility that is otherwise not available from the print version
of a book. An ebook is capable of allowing a user to modify the size of the print, to activate a“read-aloud” function, or to interact with the work by means of separate screen reader softwareand hardware. The modification of print size can allow users with visual impairments to access an
ebook without the need for corrective lenses or external magnification. The “read-aloud” function
can render written text to synthesized speech, enabling the user to listen to a copy of a work byhaving the computer or device voice the text that appears on the screen. A screen reader program
can also enable read-aloud functionality, but offers additional benefits to the blind and visually
impaired. For instance, screen reader software can be coupled with hardware to enable rendering
written text into Braille, or it can facilitate navigation through an ebook that would not be
available with simple read-aloud options on a computer or portable device.
In 2006, the Librarian designated a class consisting of “Literary works distributed in
ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions madeavailable by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of thebook’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.”845
The American Foundation for the Blind (“AFB”), which was the principal proponent of similarclasses in 2003 and 2006, 846 has proposed that the Librarian “continue the current exemption toensure that people who are blind or visually impaired are not excluded from the digital revolution
in education, information and entertainment.”847
AFB contended that because ebooks offer access to the blind and visually impaired, who
would not otherwise have access to such works in text form, the DMCA should not be used as an
obstacle to this unique opportunity for accessibility. It asserted that although some ebooks dooffer the access that it seeks, not all ebooks enable read-aloud or screen reader functionality.
845

This class was almost identical to a class designated in 2003: “Literary works distributed in ebook
format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized
entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent theenabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.”846

See http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/comments/discipio_afb.pdf (Last visited 5/10/10.) andhttp://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/comments/026.pdf. (Last visited 5/10/10.)
847

C1 (AFB) at 2-3.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 248

Given the advantages of access for this community and the likelihood that most underlying usesof the works that enable accessibility are noninfringing uses, AFB sought a “renewal” of the classdesignated by the Librarian in 2006.848 It claimed that there have not been any significant changes
in the market to eliminate inaccessibility that is caused by technological measures that control
access and use of ebooks.849
Comments. In support of its proposal, AFB offered an examination of five ebooks, twotested in the PDF format and three of which were in the Microsoft LIT format.850 AFB stated thatof the five books tested, only one—or twenty percent of the sample—was accessible.851 In order tomake its case for an exemption, the AFB had to demonstrate that the prohibition on
circumvention has adversely affected, or is likely to adversely affect, users’ ability to makenoninfringing uses of a particular class of works. There is no dispute that making an ebook
accessible to the blind is a noninfringing use. Therefore, the main question before the Register iswhether the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that protect access haveadversely affected persons in their ability to make noninfringing uses of a particular class ofworks, namely ebooks that are not available in an accessible format.
Because the determination whether to recommend designation of this proposed class turns
on the factual case made by proponents of the class, and because those facts were presented
succinctly, the case made in the initial comment is presented here verbatim:
Title: The Sign of the Fish
Author: Joan Klusmeyer
This historical fiction novel written by one of the most prolific writers of ebooks available on the Internet, opened in Acrobat, but content was notaccessible. The screen reader voiced an extended string of question marks.
Choosing the "accessibility quick check" on the "document" menu
provided feedback, voiced by the screen reader. We were told that the"document's security settings prevented access by screen readers." This
check did not indicate that this document is structured, so even if a screen
reader could access the content, the user might be required to modify
settings related to reading order preferences. The document cannot besaved as a text file.
Title: Brian's Hunt
Author: Gary Paulsen
848

The class designated in 2006 was identical to the class proposed by AFB in this proceeding.

849

C1 (AFB) at 6-7.

850

Id. at 7-8.

851

Id. at 8-10. In this discussion, “accessible” is used as shorthand for “available in an ebook edition that
permits use of screen readers and the read-aloud function.”

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 249

This popular children's book was not accessible in the Microsoft Lit format.
The work proved even less accessible than either of the Adobe PDF books
as no messages were spoken with a screen reader. In fact, the Microsoft
Reader software did not function fully with the screen reader, i.e. no menus
were spoken or accessible using the keyboard. The Microsoft text-tospeech component did not improve the accessibility. As shown in thescreen shot, only when a sighted assistant used a mouse to click on thebook did a message indicate that the content was not accessible with textto-speech.
Title: The Bridges of Madison County
Author: Robert James Waller
This New York Times Best Seller was not accessible in the Microsoft Lit
format. Our experience with this novel was virtually the same as the otherMicrosoft Reader digital books. The screen reader provided no feedback,and "tweaking" yielded no help to us when we tried to access the content
independently. Sighted help was required to display the message in thescreen shot.
Title: The Einstein Theory of Relativity
Author: H.A. Lorentz
This physics book is a public domain book in the Microsoft Reader Lit
format. The book is inaccessible – this is true whether or not Microsoft's
text-to-speech product is installed. Sighted help was required to display themessage shown in the screen shot.
Title: The Complete Works of Edgar Alan Poe Volume 1
Authors: Edgar Alan Poe
This book, created using Adobe PDF, was the only one of the five that wasaccessible. The book opened easily in Acrobat version 8.1.2. We werepermitted to choose options for processing and presenting the book in anaccessible fashion. Although using the "accessibility quick check"indicated that the document was not tagged to provide structure, we wereencouraged to try different reading order preferences, as necessary, in orderto improve the reading experience. This 267-page book seemed to beaccessible after a quick skim through some pages using Adobe's "inferreading order" option.852
In short, the proponents surveyed five ebook titles and found that three (Brian’s Hunt, The
Bridges of Madison County, and The Einstein Theory of Relativity, were not accessible in editions
published in the Microsoft LIT format, one (The Sign of the Fish) was not accessible in an edition
published in the Adobe PDF format, and one (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) was accessible in

852

C1 (AFB) at 8-10.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 250

the Adobe PDF format. Thus, four out of the five titles sampled were available in formats thatwere not accessible.
Proponents of the class presented no other factual information relating to whether (and theextent to which) the prohibition on circumvention actually has had an adverse effect on the abilityof blind and visually impaired persons to engage in the noninfringing use of reading ebooks byusing screen readers and the read-aloud function offered in many ebooks.853
The Joint Creators, while stating that they “do not oppose renewal of the exemption
related to literary works in ebook format if the Register and the Librarian conclude that the
proponent meets its burden of persuasion during this proceeding,” questioned whether theprohibition on circumvention of access controls “is to blame for the discrepancy between accessfor the fully sighted and access for the visually impaired.” They also questioned whether the
proponents had provided sufficient facts to support designation of the class.854
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information has advised
the Register that he believes that an exemption based on this proposals should be renewed. NTIA
did not state that the record supports granting the requested exemption; in fact, it observed that“the case made here is again weak. The proponents do not present the level of evidence
envisioned by the requirements established in this proceeding.” Nevertheless, NTIA concluded
that “[d]espite the limited level of information provided by the exemption’s proponent, NTIA ispersuaded that harm to these uses and users is likely to exist.”855 Although NTIA was encouraged
that the market is providing greater access of ebooks to the blind, the Assistant Secretary stated853

At the hearing on the proposed class, AFB’s witness alluded to issues relating to Amazon’s Kindle
ebook reader, and to reports that “many owners of copyright through contract have essentially said to Amazon wewant to exercise the option to restrict that text-to-speech option, to essentially be able to turn it off.” T Richert,
5/8/09, at 8-9. However, he acknowledged that he had no information whether that function had been turned off; hesimply expected that it would happen. Id. at 10. At no point did AFB or anyone else submit or seek to submit any
information as to whether the text-to-speech option had ever actually been disabled in books sold for use with theKindle, nor did anyone ever suggest whether or how such disabling would affect the analysis whether the prohibition
on circumvention was having an adverse effect on the ability of blind and visually impaired persons to obtain accessto books published in ebook form. For example, there was no information or suggestion that there were any books
that: (1) have been published on the Kindle with the text-to-speech function disabled, and (2) are not otherwise
available in an accessible ebook format. Nor was there any information or discussion as to how the existing andproposed class could be applied to ebooks distributed for use a stand-alone device such as the Kindle, rather than on
personal computers, and whether or how such a stand-alone device could accommodate separate screen reader
software. Thus, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion that there are restrictions on
ebooks distributed for use on the Kindle that have adversely affected the ability of users of ebooks to engage innoninfringing uses, or to determine how a class might be fashioned if such an adverse effect were shown to exist.
854

R46 (Joint Creators) at 22.

855

NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 12.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 251

that he believed that “even a limited number of literary works without access to the visually
impaired is too many.”
Discussion. Since 2003, when the issue of accessibility to ebooks was first raised by AFB
and others, the Register has been supportive of the need to ensure that access controls are notused to prevent people who are blind and visually impaired from gaining meaningful access tobooks distributed in electronic formats. When AFB proposed that the Librarian designate a classof works that would permit circumvention of access controls on ebooks when those access
controls had the effect of disabling screen readers or the read-aloud function, the proposal drew
vigourous opposition from book publishers and other copyright owners. Opponents of that
proposal challenged the ability of the Librarian to designate the proposed class because the issue,in their view, had nothing to do with whether users of the ebooks were denied access to thecontents of the books. Rather, they argued, the issue related to “accessibility,” a different issue
governed by other provisions of the law. The Register rejected this objection, describing it as a“red herring” and noting that “To say that a blind person technically has ‘access’ to a work that hecannot perceive does not assist in resolving whether to recommend an exemption.” She observedthat “it is far from apparent that a blind person does have ‘access’ to an work in an ebook format
that can be perceived only by viewing it on the ebook’s screen.”856
The Register concluded in 2003 that “the evidence that has been submitted by bothproponents and opponents of the exemption establishes that a significant number of ebook titles
are currently offered to the public for which accessibility to the blind and visually impaired has
been disabled.”857 She noted that AFB had offered statistics from ebooks.com indicating that thepercentage of ebook titles with the read-aloud function enabled was only 62% of the titles in
Adobe “Ebook” format, 28% of the titles in Microsoft Reader format and 0% of the titles in
Mobipocket and Palm format.858 Moreover, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), theprimary opponent of the proposal, had admitted that a publisher with 1650 ebook titles available
applied a default setting of “read-aloud off” to those ebooks.859 The same submission by AAP
indicated that another “major publisher ... indicated that its current default setting is ‘read aloudoff’ for e-books in the Adobe Reader format.”860

856

2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 68.

857

Id. at 76.
Id. at 75-76 n. 128.

858

859

860

Id. at 76 n. 129. See also id. at 80 n. 138.

Post-Hearing Response of Association of American Publishers to Copyright Office Questions Relating
to Exemption for literary works/eBooks for persons with disabilities of June 20, 2003, at 2, in Docket No. RM 20024 (available at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/post-hearing/post08.pdf).

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 252

Based on this record, the Register found that the proponents had made the case fordesignation of a class of works that would not be subject to the prohibition on circumvention ofaccess controls.861
In the 2006 rulemaking proceeding, the Register again recommended that the Librarian
designate a class of works to ensure that blind and visually impaired persons could have access tobooks published in the form of ebooks, but she observed that the case made by the proponents inthat particular proceeding was tenuous and urged the proponents, in any future proceedings, topresent a stronger case similar in nature to the case they had presented in 2003. She described thecase presented in support of the proposal as follows:
To make that case, AFB reported on its examination of five book titles. In
the particular formats AFB tested, AFB reported that there was only one
title that was accessible to screen readers. However, as the Joint Reply
Commenters pointed out, AFB did not test all of the ebook formats inwhich the sampled book titles were available. For instance, AFB tested The
Imitation of Christ, by Thomas A. Kemp is, in the Microsoft Reader LIT
Format and found that work to be inaccessible whether or not Microsoft’s
text-to-speech product was installed. However, the Joint Reply
Commenters pointed out that the same title appeared to be available in the
Adobe format with the read-aloud function enabled. Still, for two of thefive titles considered (40%), neither AFB nor the Joint Reply Commenters
could find a format accessible to the visually impaired.
In selecting a tiny sample of only five titles, and in conducting only alimited examination of the options available even for those five titles, AFB
has made, at best, a minimal showing to demonstrate the existence of acontinuing problem and the need to renew the proposed exemption. If AFB
or others propose renewal of this exemption three years from now, theywould be well advised to review a larger, more representative sample oftitles and ascertain the availability and accessibility of those titles in all
ebook formats.862
861
2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 72. The Register’s recommendation regarding
the scope of the class is discussed below.
862

2006 Recommendation of the Register at 39 (footnotes omitted). The Register contrasted the casemade in 2006 with the case that had been made three years earlier:
In contrast to the showing made in this proceeding, three years ago AFB not only presented theresults of its examination of a small number of ebooks, but also presented statistics relating to theoverall percentage of ebooks in which the read-aloud function was enabled. See 2003
Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 76-77 n. 128.
AFB suggested that due to budgetary limitations, it was not possible to test very many ebooks. T
Dinsmore, 3/29/06, at 72. But AFB’s 2003 submission of statistics reveals that there appear to beother ways to obtain the information without having to purchase a large number of ebooks.
Moreover, sources such as ebooks.com, an online seller of ebooks, provide information for each
title as to whether that title is available with the read-aloud feature enabled. Id. at 39 n. 111.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 253

The Register also described the case for designating the class as “borderline.”863 However,in light of the lack of opposition to the proposal, the fact that publishers had admitted that there
were ebooks in the marketplace that were not enabled for screen readers or the read-aloudfunction, and the strong benefits in making works accessible for use by the visually impaired, theRegister recommended that the Librarian redesignate the class.
The Register’s comments on the nature of the case presented in 2006 were not gratuitousor hostile. Having been persuaded in 2003 that there were strong legal and policy justifications
for an exemption that would address the unwarranted (and probably unintended) obstacles thataccess controls on ebooks created for blind and visually impaired persons who simply wished touse existing tools that would permit them to get access to the contents of those ebooks, theRegister was concerned that proponents had presented what appeared to be a perfunctory case forredesignation of the class. While the Register was willing to generously conclude that “theproponents have met their burden, if only barely,”864 her comments on the deficiencies in the
proponents’ case and her contrasting of that case with the significantly stronger case presented in2003 were intended to serve as a friendly reminder that even a sympathetic regulator cannot act
unless an adequate record has been made to justify regulatory action. The intended message,
which (as discussed below) apparently was not received by the proponents of the class, was thatwhile the Register was willing to give the proponents the benefit of the doubt in that particular
proceeding, they should be prepared in future proceedings to present a case that truly met theirburden of proving facts that would justify the relief they sought.
Before discussing the inadequacies of the case presented by the proponents in the current
proceeding, it is pertinent to review the scope of the classes that were designated in the 2003 and2006 proceedings. In 2003, AFB proposed a class consisting simply of “literary works.”865
Library associations that supported of the AFB proposal proposed a narrower class of “Literaryworks, including eBooks, which are protected by technological measures that fail to permit
access, via a “screen reader” or similar text-to-speech or text-to-braille device, by an otherwise
authorized person with a visual or print disability.”866 The library associations’ proposal was
more narrowly tailored to the specific problem that AFB was proposing to solve by seeking relief
in the proceeding. While agreeing that the library associations’ proposal was closer to the mark,the Register refined it by limiting it to “literary works distributed in ebook format,” and only
“when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by863

Id. at 40.

864

See 2006 Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. at 68,475.
See 2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 72.

865

866

See id.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 254

authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloudfunction and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a “specialized
format" since the issues presented related only to ebooks. Moreover, she further refined the classby noting that “it would not apply to a work if, at the time of circumvention, an ebook version is
on the market for which either the read-aloud function or screen readers are enabled.”867 The
Register justified this limitation by noting:If an accessible ebook edition of a work is available in the marketplace or adigital text is available through a § 121 authorized entity, then the
exemption does not apply. As the exempted class is framed, affected users
are likely to consider circumvention only as a last resort and only where thework is unavailable for the intended noninfringing use. The exemption also
serves to encourage publishers to make accessible versions available: whensuch a version is available, the publisher need not worry that users may
lawfully circumvent access controls applied to the work. Thus, therecommended exemption gives the publisher ultimate control over whether
any user can ever take advantage of the exemption with respect to thatpublisher’s work.868
The Librarian accepted the Register’s recommendation.
In 2006, AFB again proposed that the Librarian “continue the current exemption to ensurethat blind and visually impaired people are not excluded from the digital revolution in education,
information and entertainment.”869 As noted above, the Register described the case presented insupport of the proposal as follows:
To make that case, AFB reported on its examination of five book titles. In
the particular formats AFB tested, AFB reported that there was only one
title that was accessible to screen readers. However, as the Joint Reply
Commenters pointed out, AFB did not test all of the ebook formats inwhich the sampled book titles were available. For instance, AFB tested The
Imitation of Christ, by Thomas A. Kemp is, in the Microsoft Reader LIT
Format and found that work to be inaccessible whether or not Microsoft’s
text-to-speech product was installed. However, the Joint Reply
Commenters pointed out that the same title appeared to be available in the
Adobe format with the read-aloud function enabled. Still, for two of the867

See id. at 64, 72-74.

868

Id. at 75. This reasoning was consistent with a principle that has guided the Register’s
recommendations since the first Section 1201 rulemaking in 2000: If a class of works is available in both a“protected” format (i.e., a format protected by access controls) and an “unprotected” format, there will ordinarily be
no justification for designating that class of works in this rulemaking. See 2000 Recommendation of the Register of
Copyrights, 65 Fed. Reg. at 64,568.
869

Comments of the American Foundation for the Blind, Docket No. RM 2005-11, at 2.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 255

five titles considered (40%), neither AFB nor the Joint Reply Commenters
could find a format accessible to the visually impaired.
In selecting a tiny sample of only five titles, and in conducting only alimited examination of the options available even for those five titles, AFB
has made, at best, a minimal showing to demonstrate the existence of acontinuing problem and the need to renew the proposed exemption. If AFB
or others propose renewal of this exemption three years from now, theywould be well advised to review a larger, more representative sample oftitles and ascertain the availability and accessibility of those titles in all
ebook formats.870
The Register also described the case for designating the class as “borderline.”871 However,in light of the lack of opposition to the proposal, the fact that publishers had admitted that there
were ebooks in the marketplace that were not enabled for screen readers or the read-aloudfunction, and the strong benefits in making works accessible for use by the visually impaired, theRegister recommended that the Librarian designate the class, but with a minor modification:
because the record established that the read-aloud function was insufficient to meet all the needsof blind and visually impaired readers and that screen readers provided greater and more usefulaccess, the Register accepted the suggestion that the class include ebooks “when all existing
ebook editions of the work … contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of thebook’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.”872
Unfortunately, the record presented in support of redesignating the class in the current
rulemaking is even weaker than the minimal, borderline showing made three years ago.
In reviewing the evidence presented in support of designating the proposed class, the firstissue that is readily apparent is that two of the five works examined by AFB are in the public
870

2006 Recommendation of the Register at 39 (footnotes omitted). The Register contrasted the casemade in 2006 with the case that had been made three years earlier:
In contrast to the showing made in this proceeding, three years ago AFB not only presented theresults of its examination of a small number of ebooks, but also presented statistics relating to theoverall percentage of ebooks in which the read-aloud function was enabled. See 2003
Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 76-77 n. 128.
AFB suggested that due to budgetary limitations, it was not possible to test very many ebooks. T
Dinsmore, 3/29/06, at 72. But AFB’s 2003 submission of statistics reveals that there appear to beother ways to obtain the information without having to purchase a large number of ebooks.
Moreover, sources such as ebooks.com, an online seller of ebooks, provide information for each
title as to whether that title is available with the read-aloud feature enabled. Id. at 39 n. 111.
871

Id. at 40.

872

Id. at 41-42 (emphasis added). The Librarian accepted the Register’s recommendation.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 256

domain.873 Works in the public domain are not affected by the prohibition on circumvention.
Section 1201(a)(1), in part, states: “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.”874 A work in the public domain is
not a work “protected under this title.” Therefore, Section 1201 does not prohibit circumventionof a technological protection measure when it simply controls access to a public domain work; insuch a case, it is lawful to circumvent the technological protection measure and there is no needfor an exemption. Thus, the two works in the public domain included in the tiny sample – forty
percent of the entire sample -- are irrelevant to the case for an exemption. Even though one ofthese two public domain works was found to be inaccessible, the prohibition on circumvention
cannot be said to be adversely affecting uses of that work given that the prohibition does not
apply to public domain works.
Two of the other ebooks cited in support of designating the class -- Brian’s Hunt, by GaryPaulsen, and The Bridges of Madison County, by Robert James Waller – are alleged to beinaccessible in Microsoft LIT format. However, assuming that to be the case, it is not sufficient tojustify redesignation of a class consisting of “literary works distributed in ebook format when all
existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized
entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function
or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.” (Emphasis added). If Brian’s
Hunt and The Bridges of Madison County are available in other editions that provide read-aloudand screen reader accessibility, then they are not examples of works justifying redesignation of
the class. As the legislative history of section 1201 states, in assessing the impact of theprohibitionon the ability
to make noninfringing uses, the Librarian “should take into consideration the availability ofworks in the particular class in other formats that are not subject to technological protections.”875
The only witness to testify in support of designation of this class, Mark Richert,
acknowledged this, stating that “if it’s exactly the same work and it’s available in one electronic
format versus another, I wouldn’t see that this exemption would apply.” 876 However, he admitted
873

The Complete Works of Edgar Alan Poe Volume 1, by Edgar Alan Poe and The Einstein Theory ofRelativity, by H.A. Lorenz. AFB itself states that the book by Lorenz is in the public domain. C1(AFB) at 9, 15.
AFB does not provide information as to the specific edition of The Complete Works of Edgar Alan Poe Volume I, but
it is apparent that any works by Edgar Allan Poe, who died in 1849, are in the public domain. In any event, AFB
reported that The Complete Works of Edgar Alan Poe Volume I is accessible.
874

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A).

875

House Manager’s Report, at 7.

876

T Richert, 5/8/09, at 15. He also stated that “It’s a question of whether this particular book isavailable in an accessible format.” Id. Mr. Richert is AFB’s Director of Public Policy. Id. at 5.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 257

that in examining the five ebooks in the sample offered in support of designating the class, theproponents did not check to see whether any of the inaccessible books was available in anotherebook format.877
In failing to even check to see whether Brian’s Hunt or The Bridges of Madison County
are available in an accessible format, the proponents failed to meet their burden of proof withrespect to those two titles. Evidence that a particular title, when published in one of the existing
ebook formats is not accessible, does not demonstrate that “all existing ebook editions of the work
… contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or ofscreen readers that render the text into a specialized format” (emphasis added).
The final book offered as an example of inaccessibility was The Sign of the Fish, by Joan
Klusmeyer. The proponents of the class stated that the book “opened in Acrobat, but content was
not accessible.” Nothing was said about whether the book was also available in other formats(and, if so, whether those formats were accessible). Again, the proponents presented insufficientevidence to evaluate whether yet another of the limited number of titles in their sample wasinaccessible in all ebook formats.
Although the Register could recommend against designation of the proposed class based
simply upon the proponents’ failure to provide sufficient evidence to evaluate whether any of thethree non-public domain books cited by the proponents are inaccessible in all ebook formats, theRegister’s staff conducted some additional research to determine whether the case could be madethat any or all of those three books that were identified by AFB are inaccessible in all formats.878
With respect to Brian’s Hunt and The Bridges of Madison County, a quick review of themarket revealed that both of these works are available as digital texts through Bookshare.org,
which qualifies as an “authorized entity” under Section 121 of the Copyright Act.879 Section 121
877

Id. at 13-14.

878

If that research had uncovered sufficient evidence to warrant designating the class, the Register would
have had to decide whether she could rely upon evidence that was outside the record in order to designate a class.
As will be seen, it was not necessary to make such a decision as the Register’s staff did not find sufficient evidence
to warrant designation of the class.
879

Bookshare.org is an arm of a California not-for-profit organization known as the Benetech Group thatallows persons and organizations qualified under Section 121 to download digital text and contribute scanned
versions of books and certain printed material to the program. Those digital versions are made available to blind anddisabled persons. See 2003 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 74. As of April 2010, Bookshare.org
was reported to have over 70,000 titles available on its service, including digital books, textbooks, teacherrecommended reading, periodicals, and assistive technology tools. See http://www.bookshare.org/. (Last visited
5/10/10.) The digital books provided by Bookshare.org are compatible with screen readers. See
http://www.bookshare.org/_/gettingStarted/readBooks; http://www.bookshare.org/readingTools. (Last visited
5/10/10.)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 258

permits authorized entities to reproduce and distribute copies or phonorecords of nondramatic
literary works in specialized formats exclusively for use of the blind or other persons withdisabilities.880 “Specialized formats” include “braille, audio, or digital text which is exclusively foruse by blind or other persons with disabilities.”881 An “authorized entity” is a nonprofit
organization or a governmental agency that has a primary mission to provide specialized services
relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or otherpersons with disabilities.882 As noted above, in light of the showing only that the Microsoft LIT
editions of the two books are inaccessible, the Register cannot conclude that Brian’s Hunt and
The Bridges of Madison County are inaccessible in her evaluation of the case for designating the
proposed class. That conclusion is bolstered by the further quick research that reveals that bothbooks are available in accessible formats.
The case with respect to The Sign of the Fish, by Joan Klusmeyer, is somewhat moreequivocal. In its comments, AFB included a description of its testing of this ebook883 and ascreenshot of the cover in the Adobe Reader format,884 but did not provide any information about
where this ebook may be obtained. A search of the worldwide web revealed some information
about the author and a location where the book might be downloaded in PDF format. A
description of the author at eBookMall introduces Ms. Klusmeyer as “one of the most prolificauthors of eBooks on the Internet.”885 The page lists many of Ms. Klusmeyer’s titles, including
The Sign of the Fish, but clicking on the link takes one to a page that states: “Sign of the Fish;
Joan Klusmeyer of Rock Creek Publications; This page has been moved or the product is nolonger available.”886 However, considerable further searching led to the book itself, on the same
website.887 The copy of the book available on the website, available for free in PDF format, does
not appear to be accessible. No other copies of Sign of the Fish have been located. It appears thatthe book is available only (and barely) on the Internet.888 Therefore, it appears that this single title
880

17 U.S.C. § 121(a).

881

17 U.S.C. § 121(d)(4)(A).

882

17 U.S.C. § 121(d)(1).

883

C1 (AFB) at 8.

884

Id. at 12.

885

See http://www.ebookmall.com/authors/rockcreekpublications/. (Last visited 5/10/10.)886

See http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/28976-ebook.htm. (Last visited 5/10/10.)887

See http://www.ebookmall.com/authors/rockcreekpublications/Sign-ofthe-Fish-JK32.pdf. (Last visited

5/10/10.)888

A search of the Library of Congress catalog and of OCLC’s Worldcat catalog turned up no records
relating to this book.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 259

is not available in any edition that permits the enabling of the ebook read-aloud function or ofscreen readers.
Thus, after the inadequate case made by the proponents is supplemented by additional
research regarding the three non-public domain titles relied upon by the proponents, the state of
the evidence with respect to inaccessibility of ebooks boils down to a single example: Sign of theFish. The Register cannot conclude that the prohibition on circumvention has had an adverse
effect on the noninfringing use of reading ebooks with screen readers or the read-aloud function
when the record reveals the case is built upon a single obscure book.
In 2006, the Register concluded that when a survey of only five titles found two titles thatwere inaccessible, that was “at best, a minimal showing” and she advised that in the future,
proponents should “review a larger, more representative sample of titles.”889 Yet in the current
proceeding, proponents returned with another sample of five titles, and only one non-publicdomain title turned out to be inaccessible. Proponents barely made their case three years ago. The
case presented in this proceeding is, at best, half as strong. This simply does not rise to the levelof “distinct, verifiable and measurable impacts” that Congress required in order to justify
designation of a class; rather, it amounts to the kind of de minimis showing that does not justify
relief in this proceeding. Even the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications andInformation, who recommends against rejection of the proposed class because such rejection“may have an uncertain effect on the progress made in the marketplace to make these works
available to the visually impaired,” acknowledges that the record is “weak.”890 In fact, NTIA
observes that “[t]he proponents do not present the level of evidence envisioned by therequirements established in this proceeding.”891
The Register agrees with that evaluation of the evidence. As the Notice of Inquiry in thisproceeding stated, “The identification of isolated or anecdotal problems will be generally
insufficient to warrant an exemption.”892 At best, the case in support of designating the proposed
ebook class is anecdotal, based upon a single title.
As noted above, three years ago the proponents of the existing ebook classsubmitted a sample of five titles, two of which turned out to be inaccessible. The Registercharacterized that showing as “minimal” and “borderline,” and advised that in futurerulemakings proponents would be “well advised to review a larger, more representative889

2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 39.

890

NTIA Letter of November 4, 2009, at 13 n . 87.

891

Id. at 12 n. 83.

892

NOI, 73 Fed. Reg. at 58,075.

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 260

sample of titles and ascertain the availability and accessibility of those titles in all ebook
formats.”
In the current proceeding, proponents again came forward with a sample of five
titles, only one of which turned out to be inaccessible.893 The proponents’ unwillingness orinability to survey a more substantial number of book titles and to determine whether thetitles they presented were accessible in any format is inexplicable. As a result, although(as her past recommendations have demonstrated) the Register would be favorably
disposed to recommend designation of the class if sufficient facts were placed in therecord, she has no choice but to recommend that the Librarian decline to designate this
proposed class.
The Register does not come to this conclusion lightly, but notes that there are additionalbases in the record for denial of AFB’s proposed exemption. AFB’s Mark Richert was directly
asked at the hearings whether he had any knowledge whether the exemption that issued in 2006
has ever been used by anyone. Apart from vague references to knowledge by “the generalcommunity” that “particularly smart, capable individuals who’ve been able to find their way
around these barriers,” Richert was unable to identify any actual cases in which someone hastaken advantage of the existing exemption.894 This was consistent with the statements made in
testimony in 2003.895 While it may be difficult to ascertain the ways in which an exemption to theprohibition remedies a verifiable problem, some evidence of the benefit of an existing exemption
would be probative for a request to issue the exemption in a subsequent three-year period, and thelack of evidence that an existing exemption has been used suggests that there is no need for suchan exemption.896 Some evidence of this nature has been provided to bolster more specific evidence
in other contexts.897 The AFB’s failure to inquire and report on the benefits or deficiencies of theexisting exemption serves only to diminish the already inadequate evidentiary support for theneed for an exemption.

893

As noted above, the Register does not count The Einstein Theory of Relativity, because, as a work in
the public domain, it is irrelevant.
894

T Richert, 5/8/09, at 27-28.

895

T Richert, 3/29/06, at 62-65.

896

See 2006 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights at 39-40 (“One could well conclude that thefact that a class of works has enjoyed an exemption for the past three years but nobody appears to have taken
advantage of that exemption is proof that the prohibition on circumvention is unlikely to have any adverse effect on
the ability of users of that class of works to make noninfringing uses during the next three years.”)
897

See, e.g., C4E (Decherney) at 4 (For the past three years, media professors have benefitted greatly
from the anticircumvention exemption, and we now hope to extend this exemption to allow students to enhance theirlearning experience in the field of media and film studies.)

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 261

Another prominent issue raised in AFB’s comments and testimony relates to insufficient
information, at the time of sale, about the accessibility of ebooks. The provision of clear
information about digital rights management information is a concern being addressed in others
areas of the federal government, and is within the jurisdiction of other federal agencies.898 These
concerns may even be more compelling in relation to the blind and visually impaired. However,an exemption to the prohibition on circumvention would have absolutely no effect on the labelingof works or product return policies.899 In order for an exemption to be warranted, the prohibition
on circumvention must be the proximate cause of the adverse effect identified. While inadequate
labeling for persons with disabilities is an undisputed concern, it is causally unrelated to theprohibition on circumvention.
The Register fully supports universal accessibility to ebooks for the blind and visually
impaired.900 However, the rulemaking established by Congress requires proponents todemonstrate, de novo, in each rulemaking proceeding, that an exemption for any particular classof works is warranted for the ensuing three-year period. The Register is sympathetic to the needsof the blind and visually impaired, and agrees that as a matter of policy, access to e-books for thevisually impaired should be encouraged and, when there is evidence that the prohibition on
circumvention is having an adverse impact on that goal, an exemption is warranted. The Registerhas not hesitated to recommend such exemptions when the record has supported such a
recommendation. However, unless the burden of presenting a prima facie case for an exemption
is met, the statutory standard established for this rulemaking does not permit the Register torecommend an exemption. To justify an exemption for a class of works simply because there arestrong policy arguments in favor of the exemption, and despite the lack of a factual foundation,
would establish a basis for a perpetual exemption unless, in a particular rulemaking, no proponent
came forward in support of the proposed exemption. Exemptions in this rulemaking wereintended to be limited exceptions to the default prohibition on circumvention and to be groundedin the record of the rulemaking proceeding and based on existing marketplace conditions.901

898

See, e.g., the Federal Trade Commission’s inquiry, comments, and town hall meeting on digital rights
management concerns: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/12/drm.shtm. (Last visited 5/10/10.)
899

See “related issues” in C1 (AFB) at 10.

900

Indeed, in testimony before Congress a few months ago, the Register stated:“Likewise, the promise to offer millions of titles through libraries in formats accessible by persons
who are blind and print disabled is not only responsible and laudable, but should be the baseline
practice for those who venture into digital publishing.”
Competition and Commerce in Digital Books: Hearing before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong.
67 (2009)(statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights).
901

See Commerce Committee Report at 36 (“This mechanism would monitor developments in themarketplace for copyrighted materials, and allow the enforceability of the prohibition against the act ofRecommendation of the Register of Copyrights

June 11, 2010

Page 262

Establishing a perpetual exception to the prohibition, or any purely policy-based exception notbased on a factual record, is and should be a legislative act within the domain of Congress.
For all of the reasons set forth above, the Register finds no factual basis for designating
this proposed class of works for the ensuing three-year period. While the Register’s
recommendations in previous rulemakings made clear that the Register understands and accepts
the legal and policy reasons for such an exemption, under the constraints established by Congressin this rulemaking proceeding, the Register cannot recommend designation of the class in theabsence of a factual record that supports the need for the exemption. No such showing has been
made in this proceeding.

circumvention to be selectively waived, for limited time periods, if necessary to prevent a diminution in theavailability to individual users of a particular category of copyrighted materials.”) (Emphasis added).